Our power company, PG&E, has informed us that this evening our power will be shut off for up to 5 days because of a "wind event". I checked our two most reliable weather sources- NOAA and Weather Underground- and both show winds peaking at 9 to 10 miles per hour. They call that a wind event? I call it PG&E covering their asses at our expense because they can't maintain their equipment properly. Jesus effin' C. Oh well, it was me after all, telling Meltdown "me and my buddies are going back to pre-agricultural times." I guess I wasn't joking.
And why am I so pissed? Because I may have to shut down my business for up to five days because it going to be so fucking windy... at 9 to 10 MPG. Gahhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Too many people living in a place they shouldn't. Getting water from elsewhere...building on cliffs. But it's the power company's fault....
We're back on line after almost three days of no power.
Yes, too many people have moved to California- way too many. But yes, the devastating fires here in California last year and this massive power shut down are, more than anything, PG&E's fault. It is well known out here that the fires that destroyed a whole neighborhood in Santa Rosa and almost completely destroyed the town of Paradise were caused by faulty, very old and out-dated PG&E equipment. That power company has been cutting corners for decades in order to appease it's share-holders. This is a classic case of greed leading to disaster and, this year, much inconvenience. Had the power company kept the equipment and infrastructure well repaired and maintained, that fire and this massive shut-down would not have occurred. Many of us are aware of this, and many of us are pissed. We, and many other businesses, lost a lot of business unnecessarily these last three days. Massive amounts of food from homes and grocery store without generators have been thrown away.
And yet I just read an article from this late June talking about how PG&E corporate heads are going to be given $11 million in "performance bonuses" this year. I call bullshit!
We dont want to pay for new infrastructure in America even if we could get it the environmentalists will block it.
I am in the energy biz. We have a similar problem in NY. We are in need of a new nat gas pipeline into the NY area. The region has been growing and the capacity for delivery is maxed out and existing pipelines are old. We will not know when there's a problem until its 5 degrees out and entire segments of the system cascade shut due to lack of pressure.
The problem is compounded by an interventionist liberal governor and environmentalists who are both blocking a new pipeline.
Also to make matters worse the governor is ordering the utility to take on prior customers who turned off their service for construction and requested expansion of existing service.
There is also a problem with an older existing pipeline into the region which may need to restrict winter deliveries. Natural gas needs to be delivered into the system as needed. There is very little storage in the area due to the nature of gas.
Given all these factors a very severe problem could emerge in freezing cold weather. Will the governor be held accountable? Will the environmentalists? Will the media? No.
We are bred to blame the utilities, but consider the greed of environmentalists and the governor. I want a clean planet and renewable energy. But a wide scale alternative to nat gas just does not exist currently or within the upcoming decade. And nat gas is the cleanest form of scalable heat available.
The environmentalists are putting the public at risk for no reason at all. We should be very careful when we choose to override what experts say is needed or safest.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Our power company, PG&E, has informed us that this evening our power will be shut off for up to 5 days because of a "wind event". I checked our two most reliable weather sources- NOAA and Weather Underground- and both show winds peaking at 9 to 10 miles per hour. They call that a wind event? I call it PG&E covering their asses at our expense because they can't maintain their equipment properly. Jesus effin' C. Oh well, it was me after all, telling Meltdown "me and my buddies are going back to pre-agricultural times." I guess I wasn't joking.
And why am I so pissed? Because I may have to shut down my business for up to five days because it going to be so fucking windy... at 9 to 10 MPG. Gahhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Too many people living in a place they shouldn't. Getting water from elsewhere...building on cliffs. But it's the power company's fault....
We're back on line after almost three days of no power.
Yes, too many people have moved to California- way too many. But yes, the devastating fires here in California last year and this massive power shut down are, more than anything, PG&E's fault. It is well known out here that the fires that destroyed a whole neighborhood in Santa Rosa and almost completely destroyed the town of Paradise were caused by faulty, very old and out-dated PG&E equipment. That power company has been cutting corners for decades in order to appease it's share-holders. This is a classic case of greed leading to disaster and, this year, much inconvenience. Had the power company kept the equipment and infrastructure well repaired and maintained, that fire and this massive shut-down would not have occurred. Many of us are aware of this, and many of us are pissed. We, and many other businesses, lost a lot of business unnecessarily these last three days. Massive amounts of food from homes and grocery store without generators have been thrown away.
And yet I just read an article from this late June talking about how PG&E corporate heads are going to be given $11 million in "performance bonuses" this year. I call bullshit!
We dont want to pay for new infrastructure in America even if we could get it the environmentalists will block it.
I am in the energy biz. We have a similar problem in NY. We are in need of a new nat gas pipeline into the NY area. The region has been growing and the capacity for delivery is maxed out and existing pipelines are old. We will not know when there's a problem until its 5 degrees out and entire segments of the system cascade shut due to lack of pressure.
The problem is compounded by an interventionist liberal governor and environmentalists who are both blocking a new pipeline.
Also to make matters worse the governor is ordering the utility to take on prior customers who turned off their service for construction and requested expansion of existing service.
There is also a problem with an older existing pipeline into the region which may need to restrict winter deliveries. Natural gas needs to be delivered into the system as needed. There is very little storage in the area due to the nature of gas.
Given all these factors a very severe problem could emerge in freezing cold weather. Will the governor be held accountable? Will the environmentalists? Will the media? No.
We are bred to blame the utilities, but consider the greed of environmentalists and the governor. I want a clean planet and renewable energy. But a wide scale alternative to nat gas just does not exist currently or within the upcoming decade. And nat gas is the cleanest form of scalable heat available.
The environmentalists are putting the public at risk for no reason at all. We should be very careful when we choose to override what experts say is needed or safest.
Our liberal governor (for whom I do have issues on other subjects) was very angered at our energy company for not maintaining its power grid infrastructures. Environmentalists are not in favor of faulty equipment that leads to massive deadly fires.
Yes, environmentalists are often opposed to oil pipelines but that is a different subject.
"The environmentalists are putting the public at risk for no reason at all." Please stop making ridiculous and unfounded comments like that here. You're embarrassing yourself.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Our power company, PG&E, has informed us that this evening our power will be shut off for up to 5 days because of a "wind event". I checked our two most reliable weather sources- NOAA and Weather Underground- and both show winds peaking at 9 to 10 miles per hour. They call that a wind event? I call it PG&E covering their asses at our expense because they can't maintain their equipment properly. Jesus effin' C. Oh well, it was me after all, telling Meltdown "me and my buddies are going back to pre-agricultural times." I guess I wasn't joking.
And why am I so pissed? Because I may have to shut down my business for up to five days because it going to be so fucking windy... at 9 to 10 MPG. Gahhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Too many people living in a place they shouldn't. Getting water from elsewhere...building on cliffs. But it's the power company's fault....
We're back on line after almost three days of no power.
Yes, too many people have moved to California- way too many. But yes, the devastating fires here in California last year and this massive power shut down are, more than anything, PG&E's fault. It is well known out here that the fires that destroyed a whole neighborhood in Santa Rosa and almost completely destroyed the town of Paradise were caused by faulty, very old and out-dated PG&E equipment. That power company has been cutting corners for decades in order to appease it's share-holders. This is a classic case of greed leading to disaster and, this year, much inconvenience. Had the power company kept the equipment and infrastructure well repaired and maintained, that fire and this massive shut-down would not have occurred. Many of us are aware of this, and many of us are pissed. We, and many other businesses, lost a lot of business unnecessarily these last three days. Massive amounts of food from homes and grocery store without generators have been thrown away.
And yet I just read an article from this late June talking about how PG&E corporate heads are going to be given $11 million in "performance bonuses" this year. I call bullshit!
We dont want to pay for new infrastructure in America even if we could get it the environmentalists will block it.
I am in the energy biz. We have a similar problem in NY. We are in need of a new nat gas pipeline into the NY area. The region has been growing and the capacity for delivery is maxed out and existing pipelines are old. We will not know when there's a problem until its 5 degrees out and entire segments of the system cascade shut due to lack of pressure.
The problem is compounded by an interventionist liberal governor and environmentalists who are both blocking a new pipeline.
Also to make matters worse the governor is ordering the utility to take on prior customers who turned off their service for construction and requested expansion of existing service.
There is also a problem with an older existing pipeline into the region which may need to restrict winter deliveries. Natural gas needs to be delivered into the system as needed. There is very little storage in the area due to the nature of gas.
Given all these factors a very severe problem could emerge in freezing cold weather. Will the governor be held accountable? Will the environmentalists? Will the media? No.
We are bred to blame the utilities, but consider the greed of environmentalists and the governor. I want a clean planet and renewable energy. But a wide scale alternative to nat gas just does not exist currently or within the upcoming decade. And nat gas is the cleanest form of scalable heat available.
The environmentalists are putting the public at risk for no reason at all. We should be very careful when we choose to override what experts say is needed or safest.
You might think about becoming a writer for the Onion.
Our liberal governor (for whom I do have issues on other subjects) was very angered at our energy company for not maintaining its power grid infrastructures. Environmentalists are not in favor of faulty equipment that leads to massive deadly fires.
Yes, environmentalists are often opposed to oil pipelines but that is a different subject.
"The environmentalists are putting the public at risk for no reason at all." Please stop making ridiculous and unfounded comments like that here. You're embarrassing yourself.
Didnt we just get the democratic candidate topic shutdown bc of personal attacks
Our problem in NY is real. Yes PGE is not here but in this case we are begging the state to allow the new infrastructure.
From my understanding CA works similar to NY. If new infrastructure is approved by regulators the utility gets to pass the cost directly to ratepayers and it should not affect the bottom line for shareholders. Why would PGE not do this if they can pass on the cost? That's the "absurd" link here. For the Times great reporting on this issue that's one question I can not find an answer for.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Our power company, PG&E, has informed us that this evening our power will be shut off for up to 5 days because of a "wind event". I checked our two most reliable weather sources- NOAA and Weather Underground- and both show winds peaking at 9 to 10 miles per hour. They call that a wind event? I call it PG&E covering their asses at our expense because they can't maintain their equipment properly. Jesus effin' C. Oh well, it was me after all, telling Meltdown "me and my buddies are going back to pre-agricultural times." I guess I wasn't joking.
And why am I so pissed? Because I may have to shut down my business for up to five days because it going to be so fucking windy... at 9 to 10 MPG. Gahhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Too many people living in a place they shouldn't. Getting water from elsewhere...building on cliffs. But it's the power company's fault....
We're back on line after almost three days of no power.
Yes, too many people have moved to California- way too many. But yes, the devastating fires here in California last year and this massive power shut down are, more than anything, PG&E's fault. It is well known out here that the fires that destroyed a whole neighborhood in Santa Rosa and almost completely destroyed the town of Paradise were caused by faulty, very old and out-dated PG&E equipment. That power company has been cutting corners for decades in order to appease it's share-holders. This is a classic case of greed leading to disaster and, this year, much inconvenience. Had the power company kept the equipment and infrastructure well repaired and maintained, that fire and this massive shut-down would not have occurred. Many of us are aware of this, and many of us are pissed. We, and many other businesses, lost a lot of business unnecessarily these last three days. Massive amounts of food from homes and grocery store without generators have been thrown away.
And yet I just read an article from this late June talking about how PG&E corporate heads are going to be given $11 million in "performance bonuses" this year. I call bullshit!
We dont want to pay for new infrastructure in America even if we could get it the environmentalists will block it.
I am in the energy biz. We have a similar problem in NY. We are in need of a new nat gas pipeline into the NY area. The region has been growing and the capacity for delivery is maxed out and existing pipelines are old. We will not know when there's a problem until its 5 degrees out and entire segments of the system cascade shut due to lack of pressure.
The problem is compounded by an interventionist liberal governor and environmentalists who are both blocking a new pipeline.
Also to make matters worse the governor is ordering the utility to take on prior customers who turned off their service for construction and requested expansion of existing service.
There is also a problem with an older existing pipeline into the region which may need to restrict winter deliveries. Natural gas needs to be delivered into the system as needed. There is very little storage in the area due to the nature of gas.
Given all these factors a very severe problem could emerge in freezing cold weather. Will the governor be held accountable? Will the environmentalists? Will the media? No.
We are bred to blame the utilities, but consider the greed of environmentalists and the governor. I want a clean planet and renewable energy. But a wide scale alternative to nat gas just does not exist currently or within the upcoming decade. And nat gas is the cleanest form of scalable heat available.
The environmentalists are putting the public at risk for no reason at all. We should be very careful when we choose to override what experts say is needed or safest.
You might think about becoming a writer for the Onion.
Our liberal governor (for whom I do have issues on other subjects) was very angered at our energy company for not maintaining its power grid infrastructures. Environmentalists are not in favor of faulty equipment that leads to massive deadly fires.
Yes, environmentalists are often opposed to oil pipelines but that is a different subject.
"The environmentalists are putting the public at risk for no reason at all." Please stop making ridiculous and unfounded comments like that here. You're embarrassing yourself.
Didnt we just get the democratic candidate topic shutdown bc of personal attacks
Our problem in NY is real. Yes PGE is not here but in this case we are begging the state to allow the new infrastructure.
From my understanding CA works similar to NY. If new infrastructure is approved by regulators the utility gets to pass the cost directly to ratepayers and it should not affect the bottom line for shareholders. Why would PGE not do this if they can pass on the cost? That's the "absurd" link here. For the Times great reporting on this issue that's one question I can not find an answer for.
Fair enough (although I wouldn't mind getting a job with the onion myself! )
I won't argue that some infrastructure issues are not screwed up. Many are! But a blanket statement claiming environmentalists are putting the public at risk? That absurd.
PG&E has already raised their rates and yet the repairs were still not made. They cut corners for the benefit of profit. They made mistakes due to incompetency. The wildfires that destroyed almost all of Paradise and a whole neighborhood in Santa Rosa were caused by PG&E negligence, not by environmentalists. That's well documented. Please stop making absurdly false statements about environmentalists and liberals causing these disasters.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY
I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial
I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion
All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY
I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial
I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion
All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.
Thanks for clarifying.
PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.
And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
100 000 evacuated. California is an odd state. People are destroying the state and yet California and so many cities are sanctuary cities. And. It will get no better. Pretty sad. From the pictures I saw of California in 50s, 60s and 70s and from what I saw when I first visited early 2000s was disappointing to say the least. The last I visited was Sequoia, it was so hazing it looked liked Sequoia was hosting a vape party. Sad, sad and sad. The world is fucked because of out of control growth...
Give Peas A Chance…
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
100 000 evacuated. California is an odd state. People are destroying the state and yet California and so many cities are sanctuary cities. And. It will get no better. Pretty sad. From the pictures I saw of California in 50s, 60s and 70s and from what I saw when I first visited early 2000s was disappointing to say the least. The last I visited was Sequoia, it was so hazing it looked liked Sequoia was hosting a vape party. Sad, sad and sad. The world is fucked because of out of control growth...
Having been born in Berkeley, California in 1951 and having lived here most of my life, I can easily confirm that you are correct- it is a very disappointing place, to say the least. Poet Robinson Jeffers felt the same way in the early 1930's when is beloved Carmel/Monterey/Pacific Grove area were beginning to become overrun. Imagine if he could see it today!
Yep, out of control reproduction, out of control growth.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
100 000 evacuated. California is an odd state. People are destroying the state and yet California and so many cities are sanctuary cities. And. It will get no better. Pretty sad. From the pictures I saw of California in 50s, 60s and 70s and from what I saw when I first visited early 2000s was disappointing to say the least. The last I visited was Sequoia, it was so hazing it looked liked Sequoia was hosting a vape party. Sad, sad and sad. The world is fucked because of out of control growth...
Having been born in Berkeley, California in 1951 and having lived here most of my life, I can easily confirm that you are correct- it is a very disappointing place, to say the least. Poet Robinson Jeffers felt the same way in the early 1930's when is beloved Carmel/Monterey/Pacific Grove area were beginning to become overrun. Imagine if he could see it today!
Yep, out of control reproduction, out of control growth.
Water is already a big issue in California. In 10 years? California better get more desalinization plants up and running.
Give Peas A Chance…
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
100 000 evacuated. California is an odd state. People are destroying the state and yet California and so many cities are sanctuary cities. And. It will get no better. Pretty sad. From the pictures I saw of California in 50s, 60s and 70s and from what I saw when I first visited early 2000s was disappointing to say the least. The last I visited was Sequoia, it was so hazing it looked liked Sequoia was hosting a vape party. Sad, sad and sad. The world is fucked because of out of control growth...
Having been born in Berkeley, California in 1951 and having lived here most of my life, I can easily confirm that you are correct- it is a very disappointing place, to say the least. Poet Robinson Jeffers felt the same way in the early 1930's when is beloved Carmel/Monterey/Pacific Grove area were beginning to become overrun. Imagine if he could see it today!
Yep, out of control reproduction, out of control growth.
Water is already a big issue in California. In 10 years? California better get more desalinization plants up and running.
Yes, Southern California in particular. Of course, this state is so big it varies. The northwest corner of the state is very rainy- Humboldt County gets about 55 inches/ 140 cm per year. My current home town of Placerville gets about 39 in./ 99 cm. Los Angeles gets 16 in./ 41 cm. and Furnace Creek in Death Valley get about 5 in./ 12 cm.
But with the growing population, you're right, many places may face water shortages. And droughts will always come around again. Over the last 1000 years there have been a number of droughts that lasted 10 to 20 years. In geologic time, one drought lasted 50 years, and another 180 years. Things could get really dicey in a relatively short period of time around here!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY
I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial
I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion
All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.
Thanks for clarifying.
PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.
And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.
Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.
And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?
And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.
Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY
I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial
I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion
All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.
Thanks for clarifying.
PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.
And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.
Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.
And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?
And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.
Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.
I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY
I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial
I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion
All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.
Thanks for clarifying.
PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.
And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.
Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.
And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?
And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.
Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.
I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?
Yes, these companies put profits ahead of anything else. I do not get this environmentalist to stop infrastructure projects...we just had a big natural gas pipeline expansion and no one batted an eye...
Give Peas A Chance…
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY
I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial
I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion
All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.
Thanks for clarifying.
PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.
And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.
Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.
And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?
And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.
Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.
I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?
Yes, these companies put profits ahead of anything else. I do not get this environmentalist to stop infrastructure projects...we just had a big natural gas pipeline expansion and no one batted an eye...
I'm guessing Lerxst was referring to environmental groups opposing oil pipelines like the keystone XL. I don't think of oil pipelines as infrastructure. The whole point of Keystone XL, for example, is about selling oil to other countries, not about keeping yours and mine running. But I suspect you already know that, true?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY
I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial
I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion
All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.
Thanks for clarifying.
PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.
And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.
Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.
And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?
And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.
Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.
I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?
I do know Calif has hundreds of thousands of miles of T & D and replacing that is extremely expensive. And the biggest difference in our states is the how massively high the inherent risks are to any infrastructure that needs to cover the map like a t and d system needs to. Especially in places which such enormous high risk as beautiful California
It is true that PGE profit margin is higher than industry average. That's due to the challenges inherent to California. Are investors going to put their money in a high risk state for the standard 8%? Obviously the answer to that is no. It's been at 10% lately
Maybe the govt buying the system is the answer. But that's very expensive, and with govt owned utilities comes patronage and play to pay. They'd have to borrow just to buy the utility and then orrow again to invest billions to replace the system. And the margin for savings is only 10%.
Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY
I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial
I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion
All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.
Thanks for clarifying.
PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.
And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.
Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.
And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?
And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.
Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.
I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?
Yes, these companies put profits ahead of anything else. I do not get this environmentalist to stop infrastructure projects...we just had a big natural gas pipeline expansion and no one batted an eye...
Utilities need to generate a return of 8% (industry ave) to attract capital. As I mentioned recently Calif needs a higher margin to attract capital. That's just a fact of life. The choice is having the public buy the utility which is a complex solution
And your inference of keystone type pipeline issues is our dilemma here in the NE USA. This is entirely different than the keystone issue. We do not have enough gas pipeline coming into the NE to handle peak cold weather. That's just another fact of life.
And before the environmentalists blast nat gas (pun intended), please consider that gas is by far the biggest reason the US has been able to modestly reduce greenhouse gases the last couple decades. And currently there are zero green or renewable alternatives for winter heating.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY
I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial
I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion
All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.
Thanks for clarifying.
PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.
And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.
Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.
And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?
And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.
Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.
I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?
I do know Calif has hundreds of thousands of miles of T & D and replacing that is extremely expensive. And the biggest difference in our states is the how massively high the inherent risks are to any infrastructure that needs to cover the map like a t and d system needs to. Especially in places which such enormous high risk as beautiful California
It is true that PGE profit margin is higher than industry average. That's due to the challenges inherent to California. Are investors going to put their money in a high risk state for the standard 8%? Obviously the answer to that is no. It's been at 10% lately
Maybe the govt buying the system is the answer. But that's very expensive, and with govt owned utilities comes patronage and play to pay. They'd have to borrow just to buy the utility and then orrow again to invest billions to replace the system. And the margin for savings is only 10%.
I don't know what the answer is in terms of public utilities. When privately owned by a capitalist corporation, something like the losses incurred in Paradise and Santa Rosa are big risk when investors are more important than the safety of communities. When government controls utilities, those utilities only function as effectively as the current government which, as is plainly clear, is not a good option today. I think the answer is to do what we are looking into (assuming the iffy proposition that we can afford it): go off grid.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
@brianlux you are referring to solar and wind by going off grid?
Parts of California are perfect for solar with abundant sunshine. However even if Musk's batteries are perfected, solar can not help us for more than a few days of clouds. It takes 2 of his power walls ($13000) for a little over a day of power, assuming the need to run appliances. That's on top of the $25000 to install a solar system. One of the factors making solar financially attractive is the ability to sell back to the grid, so without it, alot of the solar leasing companies go away.
My google effort on solar panel fires:
"Although extremely rare, fires can originate from solar panels."
Now imagine whether there is an increased fire risk with 15 million of these units on every residence. Think of all the homes that are not well maintained. Do we really want panels and batteries everywhere? And can we generate enough solar for industry? So we convince millions to buy solar and then we need a grid anyway for commercial use?
Solar is a great alternative right now for those with money but I'm not sure it can replace the grid for the foreseeable future.
.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
@brianlux you are referring to solar and wind by going off grid?
Parts of California are perfect for solar with abundant sunshine. However even if Musk's batteries are perfected, solar can not help us for more than a few days of clouds. It takes 2 of his power walls ($13000) for a little over a day of power, assuming the need to run appliances. That's on top of the $25000 to install a solar system. One of the factors making solar financially attractive is the ability to sell back to the grid, so without it, alot of the solar leasing companies go away.
My google effort on solar panel fires:
"Although extremely rare, fires can originate from solar panels."
Now imagine whether there is an increased fire risk with 15 million of these units on every residence. Think of all the homes that are not well maintained. Do we really want panels and batteries everywhere? And can we generate enough solar for industry? So we convince millions to buy solar and then we need a grid anyway for commercial use?
Solar is a great alternative right now for those with money but I'm not sure it can replace the grid for the foreseeable future.
.
I believe you are correct- I don't see the grid going anywhere soon. We are on a well, have a septic tank, and use propane for the stovetop, so for us off-grid would just mean electricity. The big question for me is not so much cost up front as it is, will I live long enough and stay in this house long enough for us to at least break even? We would have to stay put for at least 10 to 15 years and I'm not convinced I want to do that. In the right location, I think it would be a great idea.
But no, this is not for everyone. I think solar energy will continue to grow, but not likely to the point of replacing the grid altogether.
I've never heard of a solar panel fire. But now that you mention it, I would look to make sure of safety issues that way. I'm guessing bad wiring in regular electrical conditions are far more common than solar panel fires.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
If conserving accomplishes nothing, it's the system that needs to change, not the cessation of conserving.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
looks like storm brewing outside. ... nope just a huge bushfire😕
Emilio Esteves recently said (twice) in "The Public" movie Q&A, "The world is on fire-- both literally and figuratively." It so true. :-(
yep were on alert at the moment has now burnt 2,200 hectares of native bushland. They have 3 days to contain it before the hot windy weather hits. They sky was glowing red last night. Not much sleep had.
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
If conserving accomplishes nothing, it's the system that needs to change, not the cessation of conserving.
Brian, this response isn't to you, but just a general comment about the discourse on this critical topic.
I find it really upsetting how this problem is talked about. Vegans say "just stop eating meat, you apathetic jerks". Auto enthusiasts say "this is my source of pleasure, you apathetic jerks". Corporations say "we have the right to profit, you apathetic jerks". I could go on but these are the obvious ones, and they're all 100% valid. We can't keep asking people to jeopardize their sources of joy (the ultimate reason to live) and income (the means to pursue joy) - at least not without providing alternative sources to both when the effect is massive.
Not to get all Cory Booker on this, but I really think we need to have conversations on a different plain, and first evaluate who we are and how we empathize with each other before we talk about coordinating solutions to this problem that threatens our very existence. That level of understanding makes the next steps so much easier, and I really feel apathy is a non-starter to acceptance and setting a unified direction. I have absolutely no idea how to get there, but if we look at why we all acknowledge a dire situation and yet don't agree on the steps, it always points right back here for me.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
If conserving accomplishes nothing, it's the system that needs to change, not the cessation of conserving.
Brian, this response isn't to you, but just a general comment about the discourse on this critical topic.
I find it really upsetting how this problem is talked about. Vegans say "just stop eating meat, you apathetic jerks". Auto enthusiasts say "this is my source of pleasure, you apathetic jerks". Corporations say "we have the right to profit, you apathetic jerks". I could go on but these are the obvious ones, and they're all 100% valid. We can't keep asking people to jeopardize their sources of joy (the ultimate reason to live) and income (the means to pursue joy) - at least not without providing alternative sources to both when the effect is massive.
Not to get all Cory Booker on this, but I really think we need to have conversations on a different plain, and first evaluate who we are and how we empathize with each other before we talk about coordinating solutions to this problem that threatens our very existence. That level of understanding makes the next steps so much easier, and I really feel apathy is a non-starter to acceptance and setting a unified direction. I have absolutely no idea how to get there, but if we look at why we all acknowledge a dire situation and yet don't agree on the steps, it always points right back here for me.
You are so right, Ben- finding joy in life is essential for almost all of us. Yet for all of us but the most dedicated ascetic (something I admire but can't really say I practice), it generally involves activity that requires energy and consumption of resources. I think part of the problem is that in a world where these sources of enjoyment come so easily (at least for us in the first world), they also become obsolete in very short order. I'm a bit guilty of that with music, books, and film, always wanting more. I try to compensate for my desires that way by finding used items (easier to do with books than records!) and by sending some of those goods back into circulation through donating or re-selling. I'm guessing people who live in third world countries and who at least have their basic needs met have a whole different view of what brings them joy.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
If conserving accomplishes nothing, it's the system that needs to change, not the cessation of conserving.
Brian, this response isn't to you, but just a general comment about the discourse on this critical topic.
I find it really upsetting how this problem is talked about. Vegans say "just stop eating meat, you apathetic jerks". Auto enthusiasts say "this is my source of pleasure, you apathetic jerks". Corporations say "we have the right to profit, you apathetic jerks". I could go on but these are the obvious ones, and they're all 100% valid. We can't keep asking people to jeopardize their sources of joy (the ultimate reason to live) and income (the means to pursue joy) - at least not without providing alternative sources to both when the effect is massive.
Not to get all Cory Booker on this, but I really think we need to have conversations on a different plain, and first evaluate who we are and how we empathize with each other before we talk about coordinating solutions to this problem that threatens our very existence. That level of understanding makes the next steps so much easier, and I really feel apathy is a non-starter to acceptance and setting a unified direction. I have absolutely no idea how to get there, but if we look at why we all acknowledge a dire situation and yet don't agree on the steps, it always points right back here for me.
You are so right, Ben- finding joy in life is essential for almost all of us. Yet for all of us but the most dedicated ascetic (something I admire but can't really say I practice), it generally involves activity that requires energy and consumption of resources. I think part of the problem is that in a world where these sources of enjoyment come so easily (at least for us in the first world), they also become obsolete in very short order. I'm a bit guilty of that with music, books, and film, always wanting more. I try to compensate for my desires that way by finding used items (easier to do with books than records!) and by sending some of those goods back into circulation through donating or re-selling. I'm guessing people who live in third world countries and who at least have their basic needs met have a whole different view of what brings them joy.
For me, I’m fortunate enough in my life to have more money than time, so I decided this year to carbon offset my transportation (flights and auto travel) as a start. While I don’t eat vegan, I only eat a meal a day typically, and don’t eat much beef. There’s more I can (and want to) do, but it’s just my beginning.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
If conserving accomplishes nothing, it's the system that needs to change, not the cessation of conserving.
Brian, this response isn't to you, but just a general comment about the discourse on this critical topic.
I find it really upsetting how this problem is talked about. Vegans say "just stop eating meat, you apathetic jerks". Auto enthusiasts say "this is my source of pleasure, you apathetic jerks". Corporations say "we have the right to profit, you apathetic jerks". I could go on but these are the obvious ones, and they're all 100% valid. We can't keep asking people to jeopardize their sources of joy (the ultimate reason to live) and income (the means to pursue joy) - at least not without providing alternative sources to both when the effect is massive.
Not to get all Cory Booker on this, but I really think we need to have conversations on a different plain, and first evaluate who we are and how we empathize with each other before we talk about coordinating solutions to this problem that threatens our very existence. That level of understanding makes the next steps so much easier, and I really feel apathy is a non-starter to acceptance and setting a unified direction. I have absolutely no idea how to get there, but if we look at why we all acknowledge a dire situation and yet don't agree on the steps, it always points right back here for me.
You are so right, Ben- finding joy in life is essential for almost all of us. Yet for all of us but the most dedicated ascetic (something I admire but can't really say I practice), it generally involves activity that requires energy and consumption of resources. I think part of the problem is that in a world where these sources of enjoyment come so easily (at least for us in the first world), they also become obsolete in very short order. I'm a bit guilty of that with music, books, and film, always wanting more. I try to compensate for my desires that way by finding used items (easier to do with books than records!) and by sending some of those goods back into circulation through donating or re-selling. I'm guessing people who live in third world countries and who at least have their basic needs met have a whole different view of what brings them joy.
For me, I’m fortunate enough in my life to have more money than time, so I decided this year to carbon offset my transportation (flights and auto travel) as a start. While I don’t eat vegan, I only eat a meal a day typically, and don’t eat much beef. There’s more I can (and want to) do, but it’s just my beginning.
The conservation point was a technical point in the heating industry. I provided a relatable example, the nat gas system is like a hot air balloon. If too many people are pulling gas, the system collapses. The gas system needs to handle the coldest day of the year or more accurately the coldest day possible in the coldest winter we could get.
And I'm not sure if all of us live in ice cold winters. On the coldest days in the NE our furnaces are running 24 hours a day. The pipeline system needs to handle this capacity. If it cant, the system fails and we have failures, like a blackout. Except its below zero and there is no gas available for large sections of the system. And thousands are subject to zero degrees.
Given that furnaces need to run 24 hours a day in this example, there is nothing to conserve (other than turning off everyone's gas cooking or dryers). The most efficient furnaces or the least efficient, they are all drawing constant supply. If the utility promises more than is capable of delivering this is the risk. That's the problem with what cuomo is doing by using words that are not relevant to this problem, and the media displaying bias taking his side.
Comments
We dont want to pay for new infrastructure in America even if we could get it the environmentalists will block it.
I am in the energy biz. We have a similar problem in NY. We are in need of a new nat gas pipeline into the NY area. The region has been growing and the capacity for delivery is maxed out and existing pipelines are old. We will not know when there's a problem until its 5 degrees out and entire segments of the system cascade shut due to lack of pressure.
The problem is compounded by an interventionist liberal governor and environmentalists who are both blocking a new pipeline.
Also to make matters worse the governor is ordering the utility to take on prior customers who turned off their service for construction and requested expansion of existing service.
There is also a problem with an older existing pipeline into the region which may need to restrict winter deliveries. Natural gas needs to be delivered into the system as needed. There is very little storage in the area due to the nature of gas.
Given all these factors a very severe problem could emerge in freezing cold weather. Will the governor be held accountable? Will the environmentalists? Will the media? No.
We are bred to blame the utilities, but consider the greed of environmentalists and the governor. I want a clean planet and renewable energy. But a wide scale alternative to nat gas just does not exist currently or within the upcoming decade. And nat gas is the cleanest form of scalable heat available.
The environmentalists are putting the public at risk for no reason at all. We should be very careful when we choose to override what experts say is needed or safest.
Didnt we just get the democratic candidate topic shutdown bc of personal attacks
Our problem in NY is real. Yes PGE is not here but in this case we are begging the state to allow the new infrastructure.
From my understanding CA works similar to NY. If new infrastructure is approved by regulators the utility gets to pass the cost directly to ratepayers and it should not affect the bottom line for shareholders. Why would PGE not do this if they can pass on the cost? That's the "absurd" link here. For the Times great reporting on this issue that's one question I can not find an answer for.
I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial
I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion
All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.
Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.
And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?
And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.
Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.
I do know Calif has hundreds of thousands of miles of T & D and replacing that is extremely expensive. And the biggest difference in our states is the how massively high the inherent risks are to any infrastructure that needs to cover the map like a t and d system needs to. Especially in places which such enormous high risk as beautiful California
It is true that PGE profit margin is higher than industry average. That's due to the challenges inherent to California. Are investors going to put their money in a high risk state for the standard 8%? Obviously the answer to that is no. It's been at 10% lately
Maybe the govt buying the system is the answer. But that's very expensive, and with govt owned utilities comes patronage and play to pay. They'd have to borrow just to buy the utility and then orrow again to invest billions to replace the system. And the margin for savings is only 10%.
Utilities need to generate a return of 8% (industry ave) to attract capital. As I mentioned recently Calif needs a higher margin to attract capital. That's just a fact of life. The choice is having the public buy the utility which is a complex solution
And your inference of keystone type pipeline issues is our dilemma here in the NE USA. This is entirely different than the keystone issue. We do not have enough gas pipeline coming into the NE to handle peak cold weather. That's just another fact of life.
And before the environmentalists blast nat gas (pun intended), please consider that gas is by far the biggest reason the US has been able to modestly reduce greenhouse gases the last couple decades. And currently there are zero green or renewable alternatives for winter heating.
Parts of California are perfect for solar with abundant sunshine. However even if Musk's batteries are perfected, solar can not help us for more than a few days of clouds. It takes 2 of his power walls ($13000) for a little over a day of power, assuming the need to run appliances. That's on top of the $25000 to install a solar system. One of the factors making solar financially attractive is the ability to sell back to the grid, so without it, alot of the solar leasing companies go away.
My google effort on solar panel fires:
"Although extremely rare, fires can originate from solar panels."
Now imagine whether there is an increased fire risk with 15 million of these units on every residence. Think of all the homes that are not well maintained. Do we really want panels and batteries everywhere? And can we generate enough solar for industry? So we convince millions to buy solar and then we need a grid anyway for commercial use?
Solar is a great alternative right now for those with money but I'm not sure it can replace the grid for the foreseeable future.
.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/inertia-frequency-regulation-and-the-grid/
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
I find it really upsetting how this problem is talked about. Vegans say "just stop eating meat, you apathetic jerks". Auto enthusiasts say "this is my source of pleasure, you apathetic jerks". Corporations say "we have the right to profit, you apathetic jerks". I could go on but these are the obvious ones, and they're all 100% valid. We can't keep asking people to jeopardize their sources of joy (the ultimate reason to live) and income (the means to pursue joy) - at least not without providing alternative sources to both when the effect is massive.
Not to get all Cory Booker on this, but I really think we need to have conversations on a different plain, and first evaluate who we are and how we empathize with each other before we talk about coordinating solutions to this problem that threatens our very existence. That level of understanding makes the next steps so much easier, and I really feel apathy is a non-starter to acceptance and setting a unified direction. I have absolutely no idea how to get there, but if we look at why we all acknowledge a dire situation and yet don't agree on the steps, it always points right back here for me.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The conservation point was a technical point in the heating industry. I provided a relatable example, the nat gas system is like a hot air balloon. If too many people are pulling gas, the system collapses. The gas system needs to handle the coldest day of the year or more accurately the coldest day possible in the coldest winter we could get.
And I'm not sure if all of us live in ice cold winters. On the coldest days in the NE our furnaces are running 24 hours a day. The pipeline system needs to handle this capacity. If it cant, the system fails and we have failures, like a blackout. Except its below zero and there is no gas available for large sections of the system. And thousands are subject to zero degrees.
Given that furnaces need to run 24 hours a day in this example, there is nothing to conserve (other than turning off everyone's gas cooking or dryers). The most efficient furnaces or the least efficient, they are all drawing constant supply. If the utility promises more than is capable of delivering this is the risk. That's the problem with what cuomo is doing by using words that are not relevant to this problem, and the media displaying bias taking his side.