boots11234
Footballguy
Simple question: why don’t they bury all power lines to avoid these fires started by them?
In the fault lines. Boom. No need to dig.Bury them across the earthquake fault lines?
Cheaper than the billions lost in fires every year?Eephus said:Holes and poles are cheaper to lay and maintain than entrenched infrastructure
Its more than just having the lines above ground and on poles. Every option has a trade off with benefits and risks. There is no guaranteed solution (that is able to be funded). Much of the risk is tied to older infrastructure that is difficult to maintain because of the area they are located. In order to properly maintain it would also require longer outages to complete the proper maintenance (which people will also complain about). There is no solution that will make everyone happy.Cheaper than the billions lost in fires every year?
My old boss was an expert witness in that whole fiasco. I did some research to assist.Wasn't it the underground utilities at fault when PG&E blew up that neighborhood in San Bruno? The problem isn't power lines. The problem is PG&E. They'd find someway to ruin people's lives with underground power.
Even PG&E didn't run overhead gas mainsWasn't it the underground utilities at fault when PG&E blew up that neighborhood in San Bruno? The problem isn't power lines. The problem is PG&E. They'd find someway to ruin people's lives with underground power.
We're talking about infrastructure that has been in place for decades in many cases. I'm critical of PG&E for neglecting maintenance of existing cables and transformers but it's hard to second guess them for building overhead lines in a time where that was standard industry practice for power utilities.Cheaper than the billions lost in fires every year?Eephus said:Holes and poles are cheaper to lay and maintain than entrenched infrastructure
I don't think the OP means why they didn't do it initially.We're talking about infrastructure that has been in place for decades in many cases. I'm critical of PG&E for neglecting maintenance of existing cables and transformers but it's hard to second guess them for building overhead lines in a time where that was standard industry practice for power utilities.
Because laying underground power cables in rural areas wasn't typical industry practice at the time of construction and was significantly more expensive.I don't think the OP means why they didn't do it initially.
According to PG&E estimates, it costs approximately $3 million per mile to convert underground electric distribution lines from overhead. PG&E’s cost to build new overhead lines is approximately $150 per foot or $800,000 per mile.
Yes, they did. Newsom has called them out on this and is putting the screws to them.So let’s call it what it is. They chose profit over people’s personal property and safety.
This is unavoidable when it is a for profit company.So let’s call it what it is. They chose profit over people’s personal property and safety.
Utility guy here: The simple answer is that underground equipment is more costly than overhead. There are sectionalizing points, some of which involve underground vaults. To work them, you need confined space training and equipment.boots11234 said:Simple question: why don’t they bury all power lines to avoid these fires started by them?
At $800.000 vs. $3 million, I hardly doubt they were guilty of that slogan. Anything that isn't maintained will fall apart, fall down, or fall over; I don't care where you put it.So let’s call it what it is. They chose profit over people’s personal property and safety.
eta: I’m not saying they’re obligated to do anything different, but it should be stated.
That's rich considering the effect that government mandated renewable energy and forestry management policies have had as the the main contributors to this debacle.Yes, they did. Newsom has called them out on this and is putting the screws to them.
I understand the forestry management part, but what does the mandated renewable energy policies have to do with it? Asking because I don't live in CA and am curious.That's rich considering the effect that government mandated renewable energy and forestry management policies have had as the the main contributors to this debacle.
I can't find the article that I read explaining it but roughly as California has pushed renewable energy it required the solar and wind farms further and further from the metropolitan areas. Which in itself isn't terrible but it also required many, many more miles of transmission lines. The accompanying safety measures fell victim to budgetary constraints. And here California is.I understand the forestry management part, but what does the mandated renewable energy policies have to do with it? Asking because I don't live in CA and am curious.
Cheaper to just pave over the forests.boots11234 said:Simple question: why don’t they bury all power lines to avoid these fires started by them?
There's more to it than that, like areas with high fuel content that hasn't burned in decades and faulty pge equipment. There have been fires where there are no trees. It's been very dry here.Um, trim the trees
But what's igniting the fires? This thread is about the power lines and the fires they're causing. It seems to be that downed tree branches are what's knocking these lines down. Why there's a tree anywhere near these transmission lines is baffling.There's more to it than that, like areas with high fuel content that hasn't burned in decades and faulty pge equipment. There have been fires where there are no trees. It's been very dry here.
So far pge has taken responsibility for some faulty equipment sparking the fires. I haven't heard a case of a downed tree causing a fire yet like I did the past ones, but the investigation won't really start until this is over.But what's igniting the fires? This thread is about the power lines and the fires they're causing. It seems to be that downed tree branches are what's knocking these lines down. Why there's a tree anywhere near these transmission lines is baffling.
Anal fires. Sounds like a great band name.I know noting about power lines but it seems to me that these annal fires are very expensive too.
Wonder if it was a Chinese food truck?The getty fire in LA where Schwarzenegger and Le Bron were evacuated from was from a downed branch on power lines.
Bron sent a food truck to where the firefighters base is.![]()
The conditions dry weather and high winds make the situation here unique but the issues of aging, poorly maintained infrastructure are common across most of the country.A buddy of mine is literally a construction supervisor for PG&E. My brother works for an entity that deals with PG&E all day long. What Servo, Gally, and Eephus are saying is correct.
It’s a complicated situation. It’s also a crappy situation.
No, that’s whose digging the fire breaks on his property right now.It's LA. Mexican.
You don't know Bron.... it'sNo, that’s whose digging the fire breaks on his property right now.
It should be that easy, but because of ridiculously inflexible environmental policy (thanks CEQA!), it isn't.Um, trim the trees
Johnny Cash cover bandAnal fires. Sounds like a great band name.
Take a play or two offboots11234 said:No, that’s whose digging the fire breaks on his property right now.
They did not anticipate the day when there would be a fire.boots11234 said:Simple question: why don’t they bury all power lines to avoid these fires started by them?
Wildfires have always been a risk in California. Development has moved inhabitants closer to rural burn areas and hotter, drier and windier climatic conditions make it easier for fires to spread rapidly.They did not anticipate the day when there would be a fire.
"competition" helped you guys out so much.Being from Southern California--it's a very complicated issue. Basically speaking--the power and utility companies basically went years and years collecting billions of dollars and neglected investing back into their systems and infrastructures. California utilities and companies constantly find ways to screw and money gouge its citizens. For example--for every gallon of gas we buy here--nearly 60 cents is tax. When oil was $120+ a barrel we were paying $4+ per gallon of gas out here. Oil is half of that--we are still paying $4+ per gallon. You know why? Anytime gas is supposed to get cheap annually--the california refineries magically have to undergo some maintenance that allegedly lowers the gas supply and keeps the prices up. We basically pay more for everything out here--while the companies providing the utilities and fuel are allowed to under-invest and and over charge.