LunchTime said:sycasey said:LunchTime said:That fire would have been prevented if they turned off power 20 minutes earlier on that line.sycasey said:
It also looks like PG&E's blackouts didn't actually prevent fires.
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Kincade-Fire-sends-PG-E-stock-reeling-could-go-14562445.php
This company, ugh.
So are you arguing for larger scale outages or earlier outages? I am not sure what the claim is.
That they don't seem to know where or when to shut down the lines anyway. Despite the PSPS, still a fire. Is it worth it for everyone to lose power too?
Well that's the choice, isn't it. Try and not cause a fire, or just DGAF and let that ***** burn so I can watch TV.
Maybe we should vote. More people live where wildfire is zero concern, so we could probably get the win.
I mean, safety is certainly a concern, but having power out in a heavily populated area for a long period is ALSO a safety hazard. Doesn't seem like PG&E has demonstrated they can manage these shutoffs for maximum efficiency (not even close really) or even prevent fires caused by their own lines, so what are we gaining here?
I acknowledge that it's possible the shutoffs are preventing even worse disasters, but all of PG&E's screwups are just bolstering the narrative that this is more about protecting themselves from liability than actual public safety.