undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjeffbee1y ago0 comments

Out of context Canadians are ... out of context. We are discussing utilities in California. California and Quebec could not be more different in terms of climate and fire risk. I can't wait for you to justify the claim that fire risk is the same in California and Quebec. Every place in Quebec can generally expect precipitation every other day on average and the normal number of consecutive dry days in California every year would shatter the same record in Quebec.

0 comments

b1121y ago

Quebec is 4x as large as California, has far more forested land, and is often very dry in late summer.

It also has massive snowstorms, ice storms, which bring down vegetation, and ranges from -40F up to 100F yearly, depending.

We can nitpick on specifics, but by no means is California more rural, or more forested. Quebec is also far less populous, and has a far more hostile environment.

Hydro Quebec does well, because vegetation is cleared, maintenance is performed, and corners aren't cut.

Unlike PG&E.

jeffbeeOP1y ago

> Quebec is also far less populous

Isn't this my point? It is practical to punch transmission lines through any place. It is much more difficult, risky, and costly to maintain a fractal distribution network to individual customers in certain places due to geography and climate. If you parachute randomly into Quebec you'd be walking for a month before you met anyone. Same is not true in California.

b1121y ago

Not really.

Less populous can also mean more rural, and that was my point.

You talk about houses in the middle of no-where, and Quebec has that in spades. And it's not expensive, it doesn't cost, it's revenue generating, and not part of the problem.

If Quebec can do it, generate massive profits, and have mega-low rates, and do rural far better than California, then "rural" isn't the issue.

jncfhnb1y ago

https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/wildfire

https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/maps/fw?type=fdr&year=2024&mon...

Don’t make shit up. Quebec fire risk is much, much lower than California. Both companies have to maintain vegetation around the lines. HQ’s risk of vegetation outages is outages for some customers on a feeder. California’s is the state burns down. It’s just not remotely the same.

I’m willing to believe HQ does it better but the challenges ahead of them are wayyyy different

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

b1121y ago

Quebec is 4x as large as California, has far more forested land, and is often very dry in late summer.

It also has massive snowstorms, ice storms, which bring down vegetation, and ranges from -40F up to 100F yearly, depending.

We can nitpick on specifics, but by no means is California more rural, or more forested. Quebec is also far less populous, and has a far more hostile environment.

Hydro Quebec does well, because vegetation is cleared, maintenance is performed, and corners aren't cut.

Unlike PG&E.

jeffbeeOP1y ago

> Quebec is also far less populous

b1121y ago

Not really.

Less populous can also mean more rural, and that was my point.

You talk about houses in the middle of no-where, and Quebec has that in spades. And it's not expensive, it doesn't cost, it's revenue generating, and not part of the problem.

If Quebec can do it, generate massive profits, and have mega-low rates, and do rural far better than California, then "rural" isn't the issue.

jncfhnb1y ago

https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/wildfire

https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/maps/fw?type=fdr&year=2024&mon...

I’m willing to believe HQ does it better but the challenges ahead of them are wayyyy different

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse