On Nov 6, 7:38*am, Han wrote:
Jim Elbrecht wrote :





On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 06:00:22 -0500, Saul Bloom
wrote:

On 11/5/2012 9:40 PM, Han wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote in
news:k78ql3 :

I'm sure there is an army of bean counters working for the
utilities planing to spend just enough on the infrastructure for it
to withstand average weather events. ^_^

And this liberal is proposing that the NJ BPU and the local and
state authorities should "encourage" the utilities to invest in
better, more "hardened" transmission lines and substations, and to
maintain properly the utility pole infrastructure. *Perhaps that
should cost money, perhaps even big money, but that would be an
investment, and the rate payers would have to pay. *Poor me.

The trees are the problem.

Trees fall on the lines and break them.

If we really want a more reliable grid, we need to remove the trees
growing near the lines.

And the ocean-- a lot of the lines were pushed down by the ocean. * we
should move/remove that, too.

Jim

It was just stupid to have so much infrastructure in places where this
storm could reach it. *Doesn't mean the sea has to moved. *Only means you
have to make sure tunnels, electrical substations and emergency
generators can't possible get flooded like the ones in the subbasement of
the Manhattan VA that were supposed to protect the freezers with YEARS of
precious samples I collected. *I am f'ing mad about that, though I am
retired and it isn't my problem anymore.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps they could just as easily point the finger at you and your
organization and say that it was you who didn't prepare adequately
by not putting important samples in sub-basements that can get
flooded to begin with. Or if you did, having sufficient pumps and
back-up generators to make sure they have a high probability of
survival.

As to making huge infrastructures like electric distribution able to
withstand 75 year events, I bet once the cost hits your utility bill
you'd have a very different opinion. I'm not saying some modest
improvements can't or shouldn't be made. Just that if you want
your power back on in less than a week from a storm that
statistically happens every 50 years or so, then it's going to cost
a whole lot of money.

I don't know about you, but I survived here in NJ just a few miles
from the ocean just fine with a generator for a week. And I think
JCPL did a very good job restoring power. I had crews from
Alabama working here. In one spot there were about 10 trucks
repairing a section of a few poles that were down. In that regard,
one of the most impressive photos I saw was of utility trucks
being loaded on C-17's in California. They had at least 8 cargo
planes ferrying them over here.

My house came out relatively well. Lost one big section of
shingles, about 15 x 4 ft and had some minor water damage
as a result. Two 35 year old trees came down, one blocked
the garage. The other would have crushed my den, but I got
lucky and it went the other way. Been busy cutting up firewood.

The shore here in NJ is devastated. By shore, I mean areas that
are mostly a few blocks from the water. IT was the tidal surge
that did most of the really bad damage, talking out whole
houses. I told folks that were new here at the shore that the
ocean has met the bay in hurricanes long past, but few can
comprehend that. It's happened before, creating new inlets,
closing others. This time it created an inlet right at the
Mantoloking bridge. That bridge goes across Barnegat Bay,
connecting the barrier island to land at that point. Right
where the bridge is, the ocean swept across to the bay,
creating a new inlet and submerging that end of the bridge.
Last cound I saw there were 25 houses gone in Mantoloking
and 25 so bad they have to be torn down. That's in a town
of just 525 or so very expensive homes.

Anyone interested in some good shots of the damage can
google "Mantoloking sandy images"