On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
So, during a Power shut-off because of wild*fire* risk, operators are
supposed to be able to re-charge batteries and supply generators with
fuel (I suppose diesel, regular gas being even worse) in the affected
areas ? Did I understand things wrong ?
I don't have an issue with shutting down power preventively in order to
reduce an already high risk, but pretending that other people will keep
their electricity-dependent equipment up, especially by providing
flamable stuff - isn't this a huge WTF ?
The U.S. transmission grid is highly dependent on long-distance
transmission wires passing through lots of dried out forests, brush, etc.
The very high-voltage lines have clear-cut areas, the medium and lower
voltages lines are less carefully maintained.
We love our cheap power generation plants in distant places, such as
hydro-dams, large nuclear plants, wind and solar farms, and of course
dirty-old coal plants in the desert far away from power consumers in
cities and rural areas in between. Yes, I know there are lots of
proposals to re-invent the electric grid.
Many of the same reasons why Internet companies build big data
centers in far away places?
The transmission lines also pass through a lot of difficult to reach and
monitor terrain, so sparks and wildfires can get a big start before any
response. That's also why it will take days to turn the grid back on,
because PG&E needs to inspect those lines to make sure they weren't
damaged while powered down.
Damn squirriels and their gnawing teeth!
Small point power sources, such as tower site generators, are usually on
non-flamable pads with cleared (gravel, etc) around them. Different risk
factors.
While wildfires have been started by things as simple as a driver pulling
a hot car with a flat tire off the road into dry grass, wildfires caused
by power transmission grid damage, malfunction and age are more common.
Hence liability judgements, bankruptcy proceedings, and so on...
