Severe Drought in the West Will Greatly Reduce Electrical Production from Hydroelectric Turbines.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, RichieRich216 said:

Coal and oil have been around before you, easy to pull up article’s on this, You greenies with all this modern tech available should be doing better…

So you admit that coal fires in power plants are common. Good to know.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,397]

3 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Usually there is nothing burning on an oil platform either.  The fuel they produce gets burned somewhere eventually though.

Oil platforms are good for most type of fishing, because they increase fish counts/numbers (they are effectively artifical reefs) but some types of commercial fishers don't like them because they use wide angle trawls or drift nets which can get caught on the facilities.  These are going to be neutral issues with wind turbines though, since the structure of the platforms is in most cases identical.  

Ahhh...isn't power required on a platform? 

If so, how do they get that power? Double A cells?

Isn't a flare a typical feature??

Edited August 2, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,397]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So you admit that coal fires in power plants are common. Good to know.

They are not THAT common.  You can go many years without one.

[turbguy + 1,397]

3 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

Coal and oil have been around before you, easy to pull up article’s on this, You greenies with all this modern tech available should be doing better…

Wind, water, and wood has been around, and used, a whole lot longer.

Tech gave use coal, oil, and nat gas .

Now, tech can get us UN-addicted.

Than said, it will take a while....

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

11 minutes ago, turbguy said:

They are not THAT common.  You can go many years without one.

At any given power plant but as an industry they happen with great frequency.

[turbguy + 1,397]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

At any given power plant but as an industry they happen with great frequency.

I would promote that the frequency took a big jump during the switch from eastern coals to PRB coals.

Operators have adapted (it wasn't cheap), and they have become much less frequent.

So has coal's contribution to energy here decreased.

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by turbguy

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Ahhh...isn't power required on a platform? 

If so, how do they get that power? Double A cells?

Isn't a flare a typical feature??

Not as much as you might think.  Typically power comes from a diesel generator, an electric line to shore, or a gas turbine.  These aren't 'massive plumes of smoke' in fact usually there is no visible exhaust even from the deck of the platform.  Small satellite platforms actually get their power from a small solar array connected to a battery bank (lead acid batteries, and have been for decades) Much of the energy required for processing the oil and gas comes directly from the pressure drop and expansion of the oil and gas passing through the processing equipment no electricity required.  The primary uses for electricity are crew quarters, navigation aids (radio beacons and flashing lights) and some instrumentation - total usage is about twice as much per capita as houses with the same number of people in most cases. 

Direct usage of energy (gas for compression for example) can be very high in certain cases  -even enormous.  There are a few platforms with very large compression capacity because they are pipeline gathering nodes, and they may have 10,000 to 50,000 horsepower of natural gas powered compressors. 

Flares are common in some areas, and nearly unheard of in others.  It's highly variable.  I have been to locations with hundreds of platforms in sight, and not a single flare.  I have flown over other areas and every one of them has a flare.  

Edited August 2, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[RichieRich216 + 454]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So you admit that coal fires in power plants are common. Good to know.

Why would I not know, You ever hear of the Industrial Revolution!

[RichieRich216 + 454]

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

Wind, water, and wood has been around, and used, a whole lot longer.

Tech gave use coal, oil, and nat gas .

Now, tech can get us UN-addicted.

Than said, it will take a while....

Never get rid of fossil fuels, It’s a wet dream to all the greenies!

[turbguy + 1,397]

5 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Not as much as you might think.  Typically power comes from a diesel generator, an electric line to shore, or a gas turbine.  These aren't 'massive plumes of smoke' in fact usually there is no visible exhaust even from the deck of the platform.  Small satellite platforms actually get their power from a small solar array connected to a battery bank (lead acid batteries, and have been for decades) Much of the energy required for processing the oil and gas comes directly from the pressure drop and expansion of the oil and gas passing through the processing equipment no electricity required.  The primary uses for electricity are crew quarters, navigation aids (radio beacons and flashing lights) and some instrumentation - total usage is about twice as much per capita as houses with the same number of people in most cases. 

Direct usage of energy (gas for compression for example) can be very high in certain cases  -even enormous.  There are a few platforms with very large compression capacity because they are pipeline gathering nodes, and they may have 10,000 to 50,000 horsepower of natural gas powered compressors. 

Flares are common in some areas, and nearly unheard of in others.  It's highly variable.  I have been to locations with hundreds of platforms in sight, and not a single flare.  I have flown over other areas and every one of them has a flare.  

'Nuff said, most of the burn something.

Even if it must be imported via an "extension cord".

How much does an installed wind turbine burn?

If mankind could capture all the energy expelled by ONE moderately-sized thunderstorm, we would have enough to power the electric requirements of the entire USA for several days.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

20 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Wrong again, 150M hub height so larger than anything else in the world!

So that nearly 100Ft taller than you state.

https://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/turbine-ge-energy-haliade-x-13-mw-tid323.html

Are you really going to bitch and whine about a small difference of 100ft on 800ft structure vrs 700ft?  Pathetic.  And you lied by cutting my post as I said ~130m and difference between 130m and 150m is ~70ft... So, if you really want to be a pedantic fastidiously moronic pompous ass... 👍

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

On 7/31/2021 at 6:57 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Sigh, Wind turbines are measured by HUB height.  You guys are talking apples and oranges comparison in your numbers.  Not tip of blade height.  Why GE decided to do so is odd.  Halide X has a blade length of 110m and a hub height of ~~130m.  Why GE decided to put in TIp height I do not know. 

Most hub heights of wind turbines on land here in USA, just like in Europe are 80m to 100m in height with ~75+m blades for 4-->5MW.  All companies keep pushing hub height higher, so you will see same models with ever increasing hub heights anywhere from 60m for old style 2.5MW turbines which were pulled down and now can also be placed at 120m hub heights.   You know, ~exact same hub height as the largest newest largest Turbine in the world, Halide X.  

The heights of all of these turbines is nearly identical.  So, saying putting them in the ocean allows for larger turbines is, pardon the pun, a tall lie. 

What is true about ocean installation is that the tip speed can be higher making more noise, but collects more power and  hub height can be LOWERED compared to its land brethren for same power output as there is no terrain turbulence problems at sea. 

@footeab@yahoo.com Here is your post in its entirety you stated that Haliade X hub height was 130M and that others were 120M. All I have done is point out your incorrect numbers ie Haliade X is 150M which is as I stated 30M taller than the others which is what you stated (even though you also stated they were the exact same hub height later in your post, D'uh!). 

Get your facts straight and there's no problem!

Oh and as for bitching, moaning and being an ass i think you have demonstrated above who has actually done the bitching and moaning and name calling.

Start name calling and everyone knows you've lost the debate.

Cheers

Edited August 3, 2021 by Rob Plant

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

12 hours ago, turbguy said:

'Nuff said, most of the burn something.

Even if it must be imported via an "extension cord".

How much does am installed wind turbine burn?

If mankind could capture all the energy expelled by ONE moderately-sized thunderstorm, we would have enough to power the electric requirements of the entire USA for several days.

 

In this case I was trying to compare the visual impacts, not the non-visible or non-local effects of burning, to help evaluate the relative aesthetic objections to wind turbines vs. Oil platforms. I now think the flaring mentioned by  @Eric Gagenwill probably have the highest visual impact.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

In this case I was trying to compare the visual impacts, not the non-visible or non-local effects of burning, to help evaluate the relative aesthetic objections to wind turbines vs. Oil platforms. I now think the flaring mentioned by  @Eric Gagenwill probably have the highest visual impact.

Yep - if they have them, that would be the key difference. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 8/1/2021 at 4:12 PM, RichieRich216 said:

Why not install Tesla Battery Pack:

Massive Tesla battery on fire at renewable energy plant in Australia

A toxic smoke warning has been issued near Geelong, Victoria, as fire crews wait for the blaze to die down.

A Tesla battery has burst into flames during testing at the site of the southern hemisphere's largest battery project.

A 13-metric-ton lithium battery caught fire on Friday at the renewable energy plant, called the Victorian Big Battery, near Geelong, about 50 miles from Melbourne. The blaze then spread to an adjacent battery bank, Australia's ABC reports, but has since been contained.

A toxic smoke warning has been issued in the area. Fire crews will have to wait up to 24 hours for the blaze to die down.

The site is the second Tesla battery project Down Under, following the 2017 installation in South Australia, a facility which Tesla CEO Elon Musk called the "world's largest" at the time. 

🤣😂 Your green energy agenda at work…

I'm interested in the relative hazards of "green" infrastructure versus "fossil" infrastructure. I know that industrial accidents happen in to both (and to all other industries). For instance, oil wells catch fire often enough that Red Adair's company is famous for putting the really big ones out, but there are smaller ones that don't make the national news, like this current one:

https://www.devilslakejournal.com/story/news/2021/08/03/state-and-local-agencies-provide-mckenzie-county-oil-well-fire-update/5402889001/

To make a rational, non-biased comparison, we would need to somehow quantify the costs of such incidents versus (say) the MWh the affected facility would have contributed to the world's energy supply.

The Megapack burned four four days. This particular oil well also burned for about four days. In addition to direct cost, osts include things like the inconvenience incurred when residents must evacuate due to smoke.

So, my question to the oil folks here: how often, and how severe, are oil well fires?

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

3 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I'm interested in the relative hazards of "green" infrastructure versus "fossil" infrastructure. I know that industrial accidents happen in to both (and to all other industries). For instance, oil wells catch fire often enough that Red Adair's company is famous for putting the really big ones out, but there are smaller ones that don't make the national news, like this current one:

https://www.devilslakejournal.com/story/news/2021/08/03/state-and-local-agencies-provide-mckenzie-county-oil-well-fire-update/5402889001/

To make a rational, non-biased comparison, we would need to somehow quantify the costs of such incidents versus (say) the MWh the affected facility would have contributed to the world's energy supply.

The Megapack burned four four days. This particular oil well also burned for about four days. In addition to direct cost, osts include things like the inconvenience incurred when residents must evacuate due to smoke.

So, my question to the oil folks here: how often, and how severe, are oil well fires?

It's a big problem,

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Do-Lithium-Batteries-Pose-A-Major-Fire-Hazard.html

"Batteries are sensitive to overheating and overcharging, Alexey Glushenkov explained to EcoGeneration. Overheating initially happens in a single battery cell but can quickly spread to all the other cells in a battery pack. Battery manufacturers seek to minimize the chance of that happening. Unfortunately, recent battery incidents have proven that it is not always possible to completely eliminate the danger.

When a battery cell overheats, gases begin to build up inside it, swelling it and eventually opening it, allowing oxygen to come in and spark a fire. 

But how does overheating happen? By overcharging, which can also cause unwanted chemical reactions in the battery cells—again threatening fire.

The most common cause for all of this is a short circuit. According to Glushenkov, it could be the result of a bad battery design or a manufacturing defect. Short circuits can also start at a molecular level when overcharging the battery cell results in the buildup of metallic lithium in the anode. These buildups grow into what are commonly known as dendrites."

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Ecocharger

[RichieRich216 + 454]

5 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I'm interested in the relative hazards of "green" infrastructure versus "fossil" infrastructure. I know that industrial accidents happen in to both (and to all other industries). For instance, oil wells catch fire often enough that Red Adair's company is famous for putting the really big ones out, but there are smaller ones that don't make the national news, like this current one:

https://www.devilslakejournal.com/story/news/2021/08/03/state-and-local-agencies-provide-mckenzie-county-oil-well-fire-update/5402889001/

To make a rational, non-biased comparison, we would need to somehow quantify the costs of such incidents versus (say) the MWh the affected facility would have contributed to the world's energy supply.

The Megapack burned four four days. This particular oil well also burned for about four days. In addition to direct cost, osts include things like the inconvenience incurred when residents must evacuate due to smoke.

So, my question to the oil folks here: how often, and how severe, are oil well fires?

Very much more manageable since Red Adair! 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Running out of options’: California resorts to water cutoffs as drought worsens
California resorts to unprecedented water cutoffs as drought worsens. How bad is it?
California water regulators took unprecedented action this week, passing an emergency regulation that will bar thousands of Californians from diverting stream and river water as the drought worsens. 
 

The State Water Resources Control Board voted unanimously Tuesday to pass the “emergency curtailment” order for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed. The watershed encompasses a wide swath of the state, from the Oregon border in northeastern California down into the Central Valley. 
The regulation — which gives the state water board the authority to issue emergency curtailments and require reporting on water use — will go into effect about two weeks from now, subject to approval by the state Office of Administrative Law, with the issuing of formal curtailment orders to follow. 
 

California’s complex water rights system is designed to allocate water use during times of shortage, and such curtailments, although rare, are not unheard of. But the scope of Tuesday’s order — which will apply to thousands of senior water rights across a wide swath of the state — goes beyond anything seen in prior droughts.
"The fact remains that water supplies are extremely limited, and we are running out of options," Ernest A. Conant, Bureau of Reclamation California-Great Basin regional director, said during the meeting, expressing his agency's support for the emergency regulations. 
 

Some farmers strongly criticized the move, but regulators said it was necessary given the conditions. 

Who is affected by the decision?
About 5,700 Northern California and Central Valley water rights holders — who collectively hold about 12,500 water rights — will be subject to the forthcoming curtailments, according to Erik Ekdahl, deputy director of the state water board’s Division of Water Rights. Once the regulation is in place, further curtailments in the delta watershed may be issued as the situation progresses. 
 

It really depends on compliance with this order, climate hydrology, and what water supply conditions evolve," Ekdahl said. 
The order will largely affect rights holders using water for agricultural irrigation purposes, though some municipal, industrial and commercial entities also will be affected. The regulation carves out an exemption for health and human safety purposes, meaning that water for drinking, bathing and domestic purposes won’t be subject to the curtailment.
The water board previously released a draft version of the proposed order in mid-July, following a notice of water unavailability — which urges, but does not order, people to stop diverting water. That was sent to many rights holders in mid-June.

The curtailments will create hardships for many growers, particularly those without access to well water. But the burden may be lessened by the time of year. Irrigation needs vary widely from farm to farm and crop to crop. Generally speaking, however, the biggest demands for agricultural irrigation in the delta watershed tend to be in the late spring and summer, meaning the bulk of water use for the year is likely behind many growers.
“It’s coming toward the end of the season here. As everything’s dwindling in a very dry year, the curtailments may not make a huge difference for a lot of crop types,” said Chris Scheuring, senior counsel for the California Farm Bureau.
 

Scheuring said the real question is what happens if drought conditions persist next year. 
What prompted the decision?
The bottom line is there isn't enough water to meet competing demands. The curtailments are necessary, according to the state water board's finding of emergency, "to avoid catastrophic impacts to reservoir storage needed for human health and safety and other purposes." Essentially, regulators need to drastically reduce the amount of water being diverted from rivers and streams to ensure that enough water remains for essential purposes and that those who are diverting are doing so legally. 
 

It's pretty important for the integrity of the system to curtail water rights when there's not enough water," said Jay Lund, codirector of the Center for Watershed Sciences at UC Davis. "Otherwise, it's just whoever gets their pump in first. And that's not really a very fair way to do things.” In times of water shortage, rights holders are curtailed in order of seniority.
Drought conditions in the state rapidly worsened this spring, when expected snowpack runoff to the watershed decreased by almost 800,000 acre-feet — an amount nearly equivalent to the capacity of Folsom Reservoir — between April and May.
 

Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a drought emergency in 41 of California’s 58 counties on May 10. In that same month, many farmers were warned that they would receive little or nothing from two large allocation systems, the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.
What happened to the snowpack?
“The simplest terms are the snow was kind of there and then it wasn’t,” said David Rizzardo, chief of the hydrology branch at the state’s Department of Water Resources.
Rizzardo said it’s not uncommon to lose 10%-20% of the snowpack to normal hydrological processes, particularly following a dry year. But losing just under 80% — let alone in such a short period of time?
 

It’s beyond unprecedented,” Rizzardo said. The hydrologic conditions witnessed this year have been forecast in climate change models, but according to Rizzardo, such scenarios weren't expected for decades from now.
Rizzardo characterized higher temperatures, drier soils and the effect of large-scale fires in the watershed as three of the primary factors driving the loss in projected runoff. (The effect of fires is two-fold, according to Rizzardo. The loss of tree cover and brush puts more direct sun radiation on the snow, which causes it to melt faster. Sooty debris from fires also creates dark surfaces, which absorb — rather than reflect — the sun’s radiation, causing even more melting.)
 

The delta itself is formed by the convergence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the western Central Valley, but the sprawling delta watershed stretches all the way from the Oregon border in the northeastern corner of the state to just north of Fresno, encompassing much of the Sierra Nevada, as well as cities like Redding, Chico, Sacramento and Stockton.
Broadly speaking, runoff from the Sierra snowpack, which feeds major Northern California reservoirs and dozens of rivers, travels through the watershed and into the delta, which then connects to the San Francisco Bay. Water from the delta contributes to the water supply for more than two-thirds of Californians and is also used to irrigate millions of acres of farmland.
 

What about the rest of the state?
In July, Newsom urged all Californians to voluntarily cut their water usage by 15%, but what exactly does that mean for the average California household?
The governor made the request as he extended a regional drought emergency to 50 counties, which comprise about 42% of the state’s population. For many, the talk of water reductions reminded them of the shriveled lawns, attenuated showers and water-bucket toilet flushing of the last devastating drought.
If achieved, a voluntary 15% water reduction statewide would save roughly 850,000 acre-feet of water, which is enough to supply 1.7 million households for a year, according to the governor’s office.
 

In April 2015, then-Gov. Jerry Brown ordered cities and towns across California to cut water use by 25%, marking the first mandatory statewide water restrictions in state history. Californians came close to meeting the goal, with residents reducing the amount of water they used by 24.5%. Now, a handful of years after the last drought, per-capita residential water use remains about 16% below 2013 levels.
Newsom’s request is intended to bring California water production roughly back to where it dropped to in 2015 and 2016, said Marielle Pinheiro, research data specialist at the State Water Resources Control Board. Pinheiro said the number seemed feasible to the board because the state had been able to maintain those levels during the last drought.
 

Household water usage varies dramatically across the state based on a number of factors, but speaking in the broadest terms, Pinheiro said a 15% reduction would equate to a cut of roughly 14 gallons a day per person.
Newsom's drought emergency declaration excludes almost all of Southern California, where the drought picture is much less dire. That’s because the region is mostly supplied by big federal and state water systems, rather than local precipitation.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which imports water from the Colorado River and the north, says it has sufficient reserves in regional reservoirs and groundwater banks — enough to carry it through this year.
Los Angeles, which is partly supplied by the MWD, similarly doesn’t expect any shortages, officials have said.
 

THIS is what a liberal State and Liberal Green Group’s will do to the rest f the world!

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

34 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

Very much more manageable since Red Adair! 

Yes, oil well fires are manageable. I mentioned Red Adair in my post because I knew that. Megapack fires are also manageable: The one in Australia affected (and destroyed) exactly one of the 216 Megapacks at the installation, because the installation was specifically laid out to isolate the damage. They had no need to call in a specialty team from Texas and no need to evacuate the local community. My question was: how expensive is this management for oil well fires as how does this compare to Megapack fires?

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

26 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

Running out of options’: California resorts to water cutoffs as drought worsens
California resorts to unprecedented water cutoffs as drought worsens. How bad is it?
California water regulators took unprecedented action this week, passing an emergency regulation that will bar thousands of Californians from diverting stream and river water as the drought worsens. 

[...]

THIS is what a liberal State and Liberal Green Group’s will do to the rest f the world!

 

@RichieRich216, how would a "conservative" government have improved matters? The California water system is the largest single engineering work on the planet, and it has been built and maintained by all of the administrations of the last 60 years. This year's snowfall and rainfall were it smallest in the last 1000 years. the "Liberal Green Group" did not cause the lack of rain.

[turbguy + 1,397]

58 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

Running out of options’: California resorts to water cutoffs as drought worsens
California resorts to unprecedented water cutoffs as drought worsens. How bad is it?
California water regulators took unprecedented action this week, passing an emergency regulation that will bar thousands of Californians from diverting stream and river water as the drought worsens. 
 

The State Water Resources Control Board voted unanimously Tuesday to pass the “emergency curtailment” order for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed. The watershed encompasses a wide swath of the state, from the Oregon border in northeastern California down into the Central Valley. 
The regulation — which gives the state water board the authority to issue emergency curtailments and require reporting on water use — will go into effect about two weeks from now, subject to approval by the state Office of Administrative Law, with the issuing of formal curtailment orders to follow. 
 

California’s complex water rights system is designed to allocate water use during times of shortage, and such curtailments, although rare, are not unheard of. But the scope of Tuesday’s order — which will apply to thousands of senior water rights across a wide swath of the state — goes beyond anything seen in prior droughts.
"The fact remains that water supplies are extremely limited, and we are running out of options," Ernest A. Conant, Bureau of Reclamation California-Great Basin regional director, said during the meeting, expressing his agency's support for the emergency regulations. 
 

Some farmers strongly criticized the move, but regulators said it was necessary given the conditions. 

Who is affected by the decision?
About 5,700 Northern California and Central Valley water rights holders — who collectively hold about 12,500 water rights — will be subject to the forthcoming curtailments, according to Erik Ekdahl, deputy director of the state water board’s Division of Water Rights. Once the regulation is in place, further curtailments in the delta watershed may be issued as the situation progresses. 
 

It really depends on compliance with this order, climate hydrology, and what water supply conditions evolve," Ekdahl said. 
The order will largely affect rights holders using water for agricultural irrigation purposes, though some municipal, industrial and commercial entities also will be affected. The regulation carves out an exemption for health and human safety purposes, meaning that water for drinking, bathing and domestic purposes won’t be subject to the curtailment.
The water board previously released a draft version of the proposed order in mid-July, following a notice of water unavailability — which urges, but does not order, people to stop diverting water. That was sent to many rights holders in mid-June.

The curtailments will create hardships for many growers, particularly those without access to well water. But the burden may be lessened by the time of year. Irrigation needs vary widely from farm to farm and crop to crop. Generally speaking, however, the biggest demands for agricultural irrigation in the delta watershed tend to be in the late spring and summer, meaning the bulk of water use for the year is likely behind many growers.
“It’s coming toward the end of the season here. As everything’s dwindling in a very dry year, the curtailments may not make a huge difference for a lot of crop types,” said Chris Scheuring, senior counsel for the California Farm Bureau.
 

Scheuring said the real question is what happens if drought conditions persist next year. 
What prompted the decision?
The bottom line is there isn't enough water to meet competing demands. The curtailments are necessary, according to the state water board's finding of emergency, "to avoid catastrophic impacts to reservoir storage needed for human health and safety and other purposes." Essentially, regulators need to drastically reduce the amount of water being diverted from rivers and streams to ensure that enough water remains for essential purposes and that those who are diverting are doing so legally. 
 

It's pretty important for the integrity of the system to curtail water rights when there's not enough water," said Jay Lund, codirector of the Center for Watershed Sciences at UC Davis. "Otherwise, it's just whoever gets their pump in first. And that's not really a very fair way to do things.” In times of water shortage, rights holders are curtailed in order of seniority.
Drought conditions in the state rapidly worsened this spring, when expected snowpack runoff to the watershed decreased by almost 800,000 acre-feet — an amount nearly equivalent to the capacity of Folsom Reservoir — between April and May.
 

Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a drought emergency in 41 of California’s 58 counties on May 10. In that same month, many farmers were warned that they would receive little or nothing from two large allocation systems, the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.
What happened to the snowpack?
“The simplest terms are the snow was kind of there and then it wasn’t,” said David Rizzardo, chief of the hydrology branch at the state’s Department of Water Resources.
Rizzardo said it’s not uncommon to lose 10%-20% of the snowpack to normal hydrological processes, particularly following a dry year. But losing just under 80% — let alone in such a short period of time?
 

It’s beyond unprecedented,” Rizzardo said. The hydrologic conditions witnessed this year have been forecast in climate change models, but according to Rizzardo, such scenarios weren't expected for decades from now.
Rizzardo characterized higher temperatures, drier soils and the effect of large-scale fires in the watershed as three of the primary factors driving the loss in projected runoff. (The effect of fires is two-fold, according to Rizzardo. The loss of tree cover and brush puts more direct sun radiation on the snow, which causes it to melt faster. Sooty debris from fires also creates dark surfaces, which absorb — rather than reflect — the sun’s radiation, causing even more melting.)
 

The delta itself is formed by the convergence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the western Central Valley, but the sprawling delta watershed stretches all the way from the Oregon border in the northeastern corner of the state to just north of Fresno, encompassing much of the Sierra Nevada, as well as cities like Redding, Chico, Sacramento and Stockton.
Broadly speaking, runoff from the Sierra snowpack, which feeds major Northern California reservoirs and dozens of rivers, travels through the watershed and into the delta, which then connects to the San Francisco Bay. Water from the delta contributes to the water supply for more than two-thirds of Californians and is also used to irrigate millions of acres of farmland.
 

What about the rest of the state?
In July, Newsom urged all Californians to voluntarily cut their water usage by 15%, but what exactly does that mean for the average California household?
The governor made the request as he extended a regional drought emergency to 50 counties, which comprise about 42% of the state’s population. For many, the talk of water reductions reminded them of the shriveled lawns, attenuated showers and water-bucket toilet flushing of the last devastating drought.
If achieved, a voluntary 15% water reduction statewide would save roughly 850,000 acre-feet of water, which is enough to supply 1.7 million households for a year, according to the governor’s office.
 

In April 2015, then-Gov. Jerry Brown ordered cities and towns across California to cut water use by 25%, marking the first mandatory statewide water restrictions in state history. Californians came close to meeting the goal, with residents reducing the amount of water they used by 24.5%. Now, a handful of years after the last drought, per-capita residential water use remains about 16% below 2013 levels.
Newsom’s request is intended to bring California water production roughly back to where it dropped to in 2015 and 2016, said Marielle Pinheiro, research data specialist at the State Water Resources Control Board. Pinheiro said the number seemed feasible to the board because the state had been able to maintain those levels during the last drought.
 

Household water usage varies dramatically across the state based on a number of factors, but speaking in the broadest terms, Pinheiro said a 15% reduction would equate to a cut of roughly 14 gallons a day per person.
Newsom's drought emergency declaration excludes almost all of Southern California, where the drought picture is much less dire. That’s because the region is mostly supplied by big federal and state water systems, rather than local precipitation.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which imports water from the Colorado River and the north, says it has sufficient reserves in regional reservoirs and groundwater banks — enough to carry it through this year.
Los Angeles, which is partly supplied by the MWD, similarly doesn’t expect any shortages, officials have said.
 

THIS is what a liberal State and Liberal Green Group’s will do to the rest f the world!

 

Politics have a direct impact on precipitation?

Conservatives against conservation?

What do you propose?

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

6 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I'm interested in the relative hazards of "green" infrastructure versus "fossil" infrastructure. I know that industrial accidents happen in to both (and to all other industries). For instance, oil wells catch fire often enough that Red Adair's company is famous for putting the really big ones out, but there are smaller ones that don't make the national news, like this current one:

https://www.devilslakejournal.com/story/news/2021/08/03/state-and-local-agencies-provide-mckenzie-county-oil-well-fire-update/5402889001/

To make a rational, non-biased comparison, we would need to somehow quantify the costs of such incidents versus (say) the MWh the affected facility would have contributed to the world's energy supply.

The Megapack burned four four days. This particular oil well also burned for about four days. In addition to direct cost, osts include things like the inconvenience incurred when residents must evacuate due to smoke.

So, my question to the oil folks here: how often, and how severe, are oil well fires?

Oil well fires:  several times a year, most of which are out out quickly and/or without any serious issues.  Serious ones maybe once every few years.  A lot of work goes into keeping these numbers as low as they are however. Exactly how to quantify it is difficult.  A lot of activities in the oilfield are multipurpose with safety/fire prevention as one of many elements. 

Edited August 5, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

16 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Oil well fires:  several times a year, most of which are out out quickly and/or without any serious issues.  Serious ones maybe once every few years.  A lot of work goes into keeping these numbers as low as they are however. Exactly how to quantify it is difficult.  A lot of activities in the oilfield are multipurpose with safety/fire prevention as one of many elements. 

I am less interested in the prevention efforts, since they just get rolled into the capital and O&M costs. For the Megapacks, this includes the extra land and hardscaping to keep the Megapacks isolated.   I was more interested in the costs when an oil or gas fire actually occurs, since we are being bombarded with scary stories about the Megapack fire in Australia.

[turbguy + 1,397]

Here's some news about oil facility fires in or near the US for the last month or so.  Could be duplicates of the same event...

I wonder what happens worldwide??

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/north-dakota/articles/2021-07-28/oil-well-pad-fire-burning-for-6-days-in-mckenzie-county

https://www.willistonherald.com/news/oil_and_energy/one-well-fire-out-2-more-to-go-in-oil-pad-fire-near-lake-sakakawea/article_1b88b186-f55f-11eb-b05a-f3574cbb108a.html

https://www.jamestownsun.com/business/energy-and-mining/7137654-Western-North-Dakota-oil-well-fire-burns-into-12th-consecutive-day

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/06/05/oil-well-bennet-smoke-fire/

https://www.kfyrtv.com/2021/07/25/active-oil-well-fire-mckenzie-county/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pemex-oil-pipeline-fire-gulf-of-mexico_n_60df8ab8e4b0ad1785dbb85e

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by turbguy

[RichieRich216 + 454]

14 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

@RichieRich216, how would a "conservative" government have improved matters? The California water system is the largest single engineering work on the planet, and it has been built and maintained by all of the administrations of the last 60 years. This year's snowfall and rainfall were it smallest in the last 1000 years. the "Liberal Green Group" did not cause the lack of rain.

%1. It has not been maintained, 2. They totally ignored thinning out the Forrest. 3. The allowed illegal pot grows to draw from the water supply. 4. On water projects they delayed because of liberal policies. Don’t blame it on the snow, that’s the pussies way out! The fact is they have clearly mis managed the water program for decades!