Wildfire(s) Out West

bootlegger10 said:

Why does PG&E exist?  I'm not going to look up their corporate mission statement, but I'm guessing they would not need to produce electricity if not for customers.  So, customers decided to live next to or on top of a hill with hundreds or thousands of acres of kindling and setup their businesses there.    The customers, who chose to live next to a natural fire hazard, then want electricity. 

I can't imagine the cost to PG&E to guarantee that every transformer and facility would be completely safe from creating a spark or causing a fire.   If this is what is required, then the cost should be born by the residents who chose to live next to a fire hazard.  So, you can either pay a lot more, or deal with rolling blackouts (which have a cost too). 

Either way, PG&E is painted as the enemy when at the end of the day they are tasked with providing a service to people who built their home next to a fire hazard.   I'm speaking somewhat out of turn as I don't know local politics and history of PG&E, but this is coming from someone in the Midwest who constantly hears about hurricanes on the East Coast and fires on the West Coast.  I care that people are safe, but at the same time I have less and less empathy for property when you built your home below sea level or live next to a hill with dried out vegetation in a windy area. 

There are risks everywhere and its seems to be increasing. From tornadoes to earthquakes to floods to hurricanes to blizzards the entire US is covered in risk.

As someone at risk of hurricanes in the NY area, I'd like to point out you do not need to live at sea level to be at risk.

I live about 15 miles from the beautiful ocean and approximately 200 feet above sea level.

By me we have trees everywhere which are great for the environment but dangerous in a hurricane or Nor'Easter 

During Sandy we had a 70 foot pine land on our house in the dark, with the wind sounding like a freight train. We have unfortunately taken down many trees over the years, but even if we were to take them all down there is still risk a neighbors tree could fall on our home

One of the benefits of this storm? Its the impetus for the waters/ vedder collaboration and the genesis of the Comfortably Numb cover IIRC. 

We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different. 

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different. 

Funny you mention this.  I had a conversation with some people talking about how NY does zero maintenance upkeep on may things and I think it's stupid.

Someone brought up that it is just cheaper to let it run itself into disrepair and build new rather than maintain it.  I disagree with this but it sounds like NY's theory on things.

I wonder if that is PG&E's stance on things?

Actually NY recently invested big on two major new bridges and a large railroad expansion. Previously, they didn't  spend on infrastructure 

It's a problem throughout the USA.  One of the political parties just doesnt want to spend. So we drive on pot holes roads, stuck in traffic, hoping bridges dont collapse.

So Aussie news says PG & E are switching off power to avoid lawsuits because of the Camp/Paradise fire in which they were held accountable because of faulty lines? No power they cant be at fault? is this true?

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different. 

Funny you mention this.  I had a conversation with some people talking about how NY does zero maintenance upkeep on may things and I think it's stupid.

Someone brought up that it is just cheaper to let it run itself into disrepair and build new rather than maintain it.  I disagree with this but it sounds like NY's theory on things.

I wonder if that is PG&E's stance on things?

Good question!  I don't know what PG&E was thinking but here are  my guesses:

Scenario one:  "Keep the stock holders happy.  It's all about money in the here and now."

Scenario two:  some wealthy PG&E executives figured they could rake in a lot of money during the span of their careers knowing that the electrical grid would last the duration of their time of employment.  They would then walk away fan dumb and happy and not give two shits about what happens later.

Or scenario three:  the left hand didn't have a clue as to what the right hand was doing and visa versa.

Lerxst1992 said:

We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different. 

Who is "we"?

Our PG&E rates have gone up regularly and often for years and I would expect some of that money to pay for infrastructure upkeep. 

Same with roads.  We pay very high taxes on our gasoline here in California (more than most states- on Pennsylvania pays more), and that money is supposed to be used for road upkeep.  The problem there- and I've seen this happen countless times- is that when road work is being done we typically see maybe one or two guys working while the others are standing around with their thumbs up their asses.  My father one watched a maintenance crew of  five workers take two full 8 hour days to remove one medium sized ash tree near the road at the next door neighbors house.  It's ridiculous. 

Line work is extremely dangerous and slow. PG&E current budget for grid repair and replacement is $7B per year. Replacement estimates at a million $ a mile the grid could be redone in 40+ years. That does not even seem possible  

We replace the grid and the dry and windy conditions  are still dangerous for electricity transmission and distribution. 

California utility investing has always been high risk. Without 10%+ returns there are no investors. Can the govt do a better job? 

In NY we are behind CA in gas taxes, 7th highest in the country, and they cant keep up with the maintenance here. The roads are pot holed and unsafe. There's no reason to think other infrastructure upkeep is any different. 

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different. 

Funny you mention this.  I had a conversation with some people talking about how NY does zero maintenance upkeep on may things and I think it's stupid.

Someone brought up that it is just cheaper to let it run itself into disrepair and build new rather than maintain it.  I disagree with this but it sounds like NY's theory on things.

I wonder if that is PG&E's stance on things?

Good question!  I don't know what PG&E was thinking but here are  my guesses:

Scenario one:  "Keep the stock holders happy.  It's all about money in the here and now."

Scenario two:  some wealthy PG&E executives figured they could rake in a lot of money during the span of their careers knowing that the electrical grid would last the duration of their time of employment.  They would then walk away fan dumb and happy and not give two shits about what happens later.

Or scenario three:  the left hand didn't have a clue as to what the right hand was doing and visa versa.

Lerxst1992 said:

We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different. 

Who is "we"?

Our PG&E rates have gone up regularly and often for years and I would expect some of that money to pay for infrastructure upkeep. 

Same with roads.  We pay very high taxes on our gasoline here in California (more than most states- on Pennsylvania pays more), and that money is supposed to be used for road upkeep.  The problem there- and I've seen this happen countless times- is that when road work is being done we typically see maybe one or two guys working while the others are standing around with their thumbs up their asses.  My father one watched a maintenance crew of  five workers take two full 8 hour days to remove one medium sized ash tree near the road at the next door neighbors house.  It's ridiculous. 

Line work is extremely dangerous and slow. PG&E current budget for grid repair and replacement is $7B per year. Replacement estimates at a million $ a mile the grid could be redone in 40+ years. That does not even seem possible  

We replace the grid and the dry and windy conditions  are still dangerous for electricity transmission and distribution. 

California utility investing has always been high risk. Without 10%+ returns there are no investors. Can the govt do a better job? 

In NY we are behind CA in gas taxes, 7th highest in the country, and they cant keep up with the maintenance here. The roads are pot holed and unsafe. There's no reason to think other infrastructure upkeep is any different. 

rhanishane said:

so many similarities in California & Australia what the hell is going on.
Severe fire danger today all forests in NSW are closed to the public today and everyone is on edge  
https://www.facebook.com/354115391435898/posts/1346530478861046/

Certainly a little thing called "climate change" is a factor!

spoke too soon can already see smoke rising 😢

rhanishane said:

spoke too soon can already see smoke rising 😢

Double my good thoughts for you and your area!

rhanishane said:

i wish i could say its getting better but it's not.  red symbols mean lives are in danger. Hot winds from the west and mass dry fuel load. Tomorrow will be worse. We have fires both sides of my place now

Please be sure you have a escape route!