Public service announcement about the De-energizing of Rural California.

[lilpixieofterror]

Not to the degree these wilderness areas of California are subject to annual severe droughts, extremely high winds, and extremely hot wild fires that burn the way they do. Though some places have equivalent hazards, but no not everywhere has these hazards on an annual basis that literally destroy vast areas of thousands of acres.

The Native Americans traditionally described and knew of the danger, and would not live in these areas because of these reasons.

Entire cities have been destroyed by a tornado or hurricane. With deaths numbering in the thousands.

[DesertBerean]

PG&E has been in the crosshairs for many years since Hinkley. It memory serves, they were forced into this by threats of legal action from the state and from groups. The deengerzings weren't popular with the company because it meant they had to (and are) go out and inspect every bit of equipement and tower etc before they can turn everything back on.

Fingers of blame everywhere because the wilderness and forests weren't managed in the first place!

[RumTumTugger]

PG&E has been in the crosshairs for many years since Hinkley. It memory serves, they were forced into this by threats of legal action from the state and from groups. The deengerzings weren't popular with the company because it meant they had to (and are) go out and inspect every bit of equipement and tower etc before they can turn everything back on.

Fingers of blame everywhere because the wilderness and forests weren't managed in the first place!

Was Barstow one of the effected area's DB?

[DesertBerean]

Was Barstow one of the effected area's DB?

Not so far. And it looks unlikely that we would be affected at all...remains to seen. Last time a fire got anywhere near our area was 2003 with the Olds fire, and judging from the current fire in the Cajon Pass, their power grid isn't part of ours.

[Teallaura]

In reality these wilderness areas should not have been developed in the first place.

I actually agree with this - but victimizing people for buying lawfully built homes in areas that were legally permitted for development is unconscionable. It looks like the state trying to reduce the property values - or just plain drive people out - presumably for later 'reclamation', at much lower prices than current market value.

[RumTumTugger]

I actually agree with this - but victimizing people for buying lawfully built homes in areas that were legally permitted for development is unconscionable. It looks like the state trying to reduce the property values - or just plain drive people out - presumably for later 'reclamation', at much lower prices than current market value.

On top of that this hits the poorer and middle class worse the the richer even if they do have a generator because of the gas tax the gas to run the generators may make them choose between actual food or making sure what food they have is safe.

[RumTumTugger]

What does "good stewardship" look like to you?

I can tell you what it isn't it isn't forcing the electric companies to put money into Green energy, and electric car subsidies instead of safety upgrades and repairs to their equipment.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/califor...es-11570748835

Two dozen or so wildfires in the past few years have been linked to PG&E equipment, including one last fall that killed 85 people. PG&E under state law is on the hook for tens of billions of dollars in damages and has filed for bankruptcy. For years the utility skimped on safety upgrades and repairs while pumping billions into green energy and electric-car subsidies to please its overlords in Sacramento. Credit Suisse has estimated that long-term contracts with renewable developers cost the utility $2.2 billion annually more than current market power rates.

Or going with the opposition of eco-nazies to logging and controlled burning and curtailing each of them which is why the area's that had the black out were in danger of wild fires.
also from https://www.wsj.com/articles/califor...es-11570748835

[shunyadragon]

I actually agree with this - but victimizing people for buying lawfully built homes in areas that were legally permitted for development is unconscionable. It looks like the state trying to reduce the property values - or just plain drive people out - presumably for later 'reclamation', at much lower prices than current market value.

What is legal is an issue, because development laws need to changed. but the problem with development in these California 'wilderness' regions have been known for many years, and it remains up to individuals to be responsible for their own decisions when the devastating and deadly annual fre risks are well known.

I do not believe this is what you call 'victimizing', because the fires that followed, and the risk is earrented. By far the overwhelming majority of development in these 'wilderness' regions is higher income housing.

[shunyadragon]

Entire cities have been destroyed by a tornado or hurricane. With deaths numbering in the thousands.

Yes, what you describe are real disasters, and in part reflect with rising sea levels because of global warming, development in tidal zones, and flood plains of major rivers should be limited.

The issue in the 'wilderness' semi-arid regions is that these are regular annual events of widespread complete devastation by fires, and the disaster you reference are not regular annual events in the same locations.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, what you describe are real disasters, and in part reflect with rising sea levels because of global warming, development in tidal zones, and flood plains of major rivers should be limited.

The issue in the 'wilderness' semi-arid regions is that these are regular annual events of widespread complete devastation by fires, and the disaster you reference are not regular annual events in the same locations.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, what you describe are real disasters, and in part reflect with rising sea levels because of global warming, development in tidal zones, and flood plains of major rivers should be limited.

The issue in the 'wilderness' semi-arid regions is that these are regular annual events of widespread complete devastation by fires, and the disaster you reference are not regular annual events in the same locations.

I wanted to add concerning disaster prone regions for river flooding and hurricane floods, which is my specialty in geology as hydrology and geomorphology. A good part of my career was mapping flood prone regions in West Virginia and North Carolina. I published several papers in North Carolina on related coastal geology. I was on a HUD and local governments interdisiplinary project in evaluating flood hazard and development in West Virginia after a devastating hurricane flooding event. Despite all the efforts, development continued in these flood prone areas on a development and individual basis.

When hurricane and severe flooding events occur repeatedly in these areas, people still rebuild and expect the government to bail them out when the next flooding and hurricane event takes place.

[Teallaura]

What is legal is an issue, because development laws need to changed. but the problem with development in these California 'wilderness' regions have been known for many years, and it remains up to individuals to be responsible for their own decisions when the devastating and deadly annual fre risks are well known.

I do not believe this is what you call 'victimizing', because the fires that followed, and the risk is earrented. By far the overwhelming majority of development in these 'wilderness' regions is higher income housing.

Higher income doesn't negate the point - they bought the property lawfully.

The failure is in the utility not addressing the hazard long since. Making the property owners suffer - now with one possibly attributable death - is a form of victimization.

[shunyadragon]

One correction for now. Coastlines are NOT growing. There are some areas where melting glaciers have caused the rebound of the land, and there is some migration of barrier islands on the coast, butin general coastlines are not growing.

[rogue06]

One correction for now. Coastlines are NOT growing. There are some areas where melting glaciers have caused the rebound of the land, and there is some migration of barrier islands on the coast, butin general coastlines are not growing.

Hmm. From last year:

Source: Beaches worldwide are growing

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Continues at link above


As is so often is the case this appears to be considerably more complex as is typically portrayed.

[shunyadragon]

On top of that this hits the poorer and middle class worse the the richer even if they do have a generator because of the gas tax the gas to run the generators may make them choose between actual food or making sure what food they have is safe.

No one has died from the power shutdown, and death toll goes up from the fires.