- 8,213
- 2,651
They are expecting gusts up to 70 mph again and have issued a most severe fire alert for much of the LA basin. It looks like one area where I lived may get hit.
"Reservoir" in this case is not being used in the typical sense of "large, artificial lake" and is being used in the technical term of "liquid storage structure"DaveE said:Citation please. It's nearly impossible to drain a large reservoir in a few days.
Tom.G said:The manager of the Altadena Water district, Tom Majich:
"To fight a wildfire, you have to have Lake Havasu behind you. You could fill a Rose Bowl with water and it wouldn't be enough. There's not a system that can do it."
From memory, another statement I ran across but can't find at the moment said:
City neighborhood water systems are designed to handle the daily usage of our customers and a building fire or two. We had 4 times the normal usage for 15 hours. (If i recall correctly, that emptied 2 large reservoirs, a third reservoir had been drained for needed repairs.)
Ahhhh, spotfires. The biggest reason for fires to spread so quickly, especially into an urban environment. Part of why keeping your gutters clean is so important... a dirty gutter grows more than just weeds.Tom.G said:The fire spread so fast because "...high winds were carrying burning embers one to three miles beyond the fireline."
It has been reported that embers often entered homes through their vents, such as the attic vents This is how many fires spread from home to home.Flyboy said:Ahhhh, spotfires. The biggest reason for fires to spread so quickly, especially into an urban environment. Part of why keeping your gutters clean is so important... a dirty gutter grows more than just weeds.
1) We are. But it's a HUGE project.QuarkyMeson said:California should just work on burying all their powerlines
I see one obvious reason why increasing temperatures and less rainfall might lead to a lower risk of wildfires in some regions - especially parts of Southern California.gmax137 said:Thank you @PeroK
I am not a climate change denier, and I have no doubt that overall increasing temperatures and less rainfall will lead to a higher risk of wildfires. I'm just saying that pointing to the ongoing fires in LA and saying "see? climate change!" is not helpful. There are plenty of conditions in that region that share some blame in the scope of these fires. I don't think that fixating on climate change will lead to any improvement in the future.
From the first link, the trend (1984 - 2011) in "Mediterranean California" (the coast including the Los Angeles basin) is fewer large fires. It would be nice to have more up to date data like this.
View attachment 355787
And their first three recommendations to "Build Resilience" line up with my previous comment "overbuilding inadequately designed housing in the steep canyons. In an area well known for fires and high winds"
DaveE said:1) We are. But it's a HUGE project.
2) Do you have any idea how big and populous California is? How big the distribution network is?
3) Where will the money come from to do this faster than the present rate?
Thanks for your help. We knew that many years ago.
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-...eliability/undergrounding-program-description
The utility, he said, is upgrading to equipment that withstands 80 m.p.h., but data “strongly implies that older poles and conductors were failing at less than 80 m.p.h.” during this week’s wind storms. The Santa Ana winds that have whipped Los Angeles this week have reached speeds of around 100 m.p.h.
In response to questions about its response, the department of water and power acknowledged that it did not cut power in advance of the fires in the city despite the wind speeds.
This group of fires alone may exceed that:QuarkyMeson said:If we assume that only 25% of the remaining above-ground distribution network is in areas at risk of wildfire and high winds, the cost to bury that portion drops to roughly $82 billion. That’s comparable to what California spends annually on its K-12 education system or its health and human services agencies. Sounds like a lot, right?
Maybe, in some senses. But the power T&D lines are owned, as far as I know, by the power companies, not the state.QuarkyMeson said:It is the responsibility of state and local governments to manage and provide safe infrastructure.
gmax137 said:Maybe, in some senses. But the power T&D lines are owned, as far as I know, by the power companies, not the state.
Here's three interesting articles:
https://www.powereng.com/library/reacting-is-not-a-plan-whats-your-wildfire-strategy
https://www.powereng.com/library/wildfire-mitigation-a-framework-to-manage-risk/
https://www.powereng.com/library/understanding-wildfire-risks-from-poles-lines-and-substations
https://www.yahoo.com/news/experts-share-inconvenient-truths-wildfires-113520873.htmlNot quite six years ago, wildfire expert Jack Cohen, who lives in Missoula, in the US state of Montana, visited Pacific Palisades to instruct firefighters and property owners on how to protect homes against wildfires.
Three days of training, including a tour of the community left Cohen hopeful, but the feeling faded when it became clear that his lessons were not going to be fully implemented.
The recent outbreak of wildfires raging in the region has left him with a deep sadness.
https://www.desertsun.com/story/new...ia-fire-prone-power-lines-why-not/3937653002/Ivan Seeking said:I don't see that he gave any concrete suggestions that aren't already well known.
He even makes outdated and false statements. No one thinks this is seasonal anymore. Californians are the first to tell you it is fire season all year now. There are no seasons.
Now we will get the rash of I-told-you-so nonsense. Sure, there are many things that can be learned and be improved. But this event was an act of nature. It was a fire hurricane in a tinder box where there has been no significant rain since May of last year.
That program does not prioritize lines in high wildfire hazard risk zones, but some residents in communities that experienced wildfires, including coastal Malibu and Rancho Palo Verde, have pushed for that policy to change to prioritize risky areas.
The bottom line is, that is a political (money) problem. Everyone knows the solutions.QuarkyMeson said:https://www.desertsun.com/story/new...ia-fire-prone-power-lines-why-not/3937653002/
This is pretty interesting. From 2019:
Malibu is mentioned as wanting to edit the policy to underground lines in wildfire hazard risk zones first. Not sure if that policy was ever changed.
Another interesting point is how wildly different all the estimates are to underground. Edison says 2 million, PG&E says 3 million, this article says 5 million per mile, etc.
At current undergrounding rates (as of 2019, I guess it would be interesting to see the delta now versus 2025) the article quotes it would only take 1000 more years to underground all T&D lines in California.
Obviously my memory was somewhat volatile.DaveE said:Citation please. It's nearly impossible to drain a large reservoir in a few days.
Not that interesting or informative if you understand that California is a very large State with diverse geography and population distribution. PGE, SCE, SDGE, etc. all have pretty different service areas. Power distribution over the Mojave Desert isn't really comparable to the Northern Sierra Nevada. Plus what they say is pretty political since the utilities are regulated by the PUC.QuarkyMeson said:Another interesting point is how wildly different all the estimates are to underground. Edison says 2 million, PG&E says 3 million, this article says 5 million per mile, etc.
Interfering with nature is a primary purpose of civilization!gary350 said:Why do people try to interfere with nature.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/...om-the-l-a-fires-may-end-up-in-the-thousands/Indirect death toll from the L.A. fires may end up in the thousands
The toxic smoke from the fires, combined with disruption to the economy, health care system, and mental health may lead to thousands of deaths over the coming years.