NationStates Jolt Archive

Are they going to be able to put these damm fires out?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/13/wildfires/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Los Angeles fire officials say they're worried that nighttime winds could push two major wildfires, which already are blamed in two deaths, closer to pricey neighborhoods on the Pacific coast.

"We are concerned about what will happen tonight when the winds pick up," Los Angeles Fire Chief Douglas Barry said Monday.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Monday declared a state of emergency Monday in Los Angeles and Ventura counties because of the fires.

Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman, whose district covers the area where the fire is burning, called on President Bush to issue a federal disaster declaration for the area.

At least two people have died because of the blazes, which have burned 8,000 acres in the hills and mountains of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, fire and police officials said.

One was identified as a man who died in a makeshift wood-and-cardboard shelter and appeared to be homeless. A dog's body also was found.

The other victim was killed in a collision of motorists who were trying to exit a freeway that was closed because of one of the wildfires, a fire official said.

No identity or age was available for either victim.

"Winds are causing fire conditions to change by the hour," Schwarzenegger said in a statement released Monday. "Several thousand acres have already burned with minimal containment and more acres are threatened." iReport.com: Are wildfires affecting you?

Residents downwind were warned to remain alert into the night. "It can go from here to the ocean in a matter of two to three hours," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, The Associated Press reported.

Barry said investigators have not determined a cause for either blaze.

Fire officials warned that strong winds, predicted to reach more than 60 mph after 11 p.m., could send fire roaring south down the Pacific coast near Highway 101.

Officials have shut two freeways north of Los Angeles and authorities dispatched water-dropping helicopters and more than 200 fire engines as the blaze "started to push toward the city," said John Tripp of the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

About 350 police officers are on the scene, patrolling evacuated neighborhoods and warning residents ahead of the flames.

Officials shut down part of Interstate 210, also known as the Foothill Freeway, and any residents north of the freeway were under a mandatory evacuation order. The fire jumped the interstate in one spot and headed toward the Lake View Terrace area.

A portion of State Route 118, known as the Ronald Reagan Freeway, also was closed.

The larger of the two fires has charred more than 3,500 acres in the Angeles National Forest, officials said.
That fire destroyed several structures, including about 30 mobile homes in the Lopez Canyon area, said Los Angeles County fire inspector Sam Padilla. The mobile homes had been evacuated Sunday.

The other fire, burning nearby, is expected to expand as the winds push the flames away from the center.

In San Diego County, a wildfire that began on an explosives training range at Camp Pendleton had grown to more than 1,500 acres by nightfall and forced the evacuation of 1,400 homes, The AP reported.

In northern California, a wildfire that started Sunday on Angel Island in San Francisco Bay had spread across 250 acres as of Monday morning but hadn't damaged any buildings in the historic state park, a Marin County fire official said.


Is this what's in store for us all because of the dammed global warming?

wooohooo no more cali.

Is this what's in store for us all because of the dammed global warming?

Well, if global warming were dammed, this wouldn't be a problem anymore, would it? :D

Well, if global warming were dammed, this wouldn't be a problem anymore, would it? :D

Well Bush is certainly dammed and he has 3 more months to cause problems! :eek: :p

Well Bush is certainly dammed and he has 3 more months to cause problems! :eek:

No, he has about 3 months before someone else, hopefully, can start damming the problems he caused. :D

You know, we have fires every year and still exist. Big state, kids. I've lived here my entire life and I haven't even seen one.

No, he has about 3 months before someone else, hopefully, can start damming the problems he caused. :D

I think that's a dam that can't hold all the water! :p

Actually, LA might easily be one of the winners out of Global Warming. If it moves to a true tropical climate instead of sub-tropical arid, the wildfire problem will decrease with the increase in humidity.

You know, we have fires every year and still exist. Big state, kids. I've lived here my entire life and I haven't even seen one.

Yeah, that's the benefit of living in Death Valley. :D

Yeah, that's the benefit of living in Death Valley. :D

That's what I was thinking.

Actually, LA might easily be one of the winners out of Global Warming. If it moves to a true tropical climate instead of sub-tropical arid, the wildfire problem will decrease with the increase in humidity.

So you'll have a wet, charred black state. I think a ten ton ball of string would make a better tourists attraction!
:tongue:

I think a ten ton ball of string would make a better tourists attraction!
:tongue:

Especially if it's soaking wet, or burnt to a crisp... :tongue:

I'm sure smokey the bear will save us (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NOErZuzZpS8)

Nah... the real danger for California is about half of it falling into the sea. Wildfires are nothing* :p


* She says living in the UK where it is perpetually wet and damp

dryer conditions will of course lead to more fires and more difficulty putting them out. if everything south of bakersfield actually were to be lost, which is far from the case here, even remotely, this would be no loss to the REAL california.

so to say "rip california" is another one of those "rumors of my demise" being "greatly exagerated"

global warming is of course real, and triggered, if not completly caused, and it might be that too, at least for it to be occuring at this time, by the use of combustion to generate energy and propel transportation, times the excessive numbers of the human species. fires, like wars, may be one of the LEAST devistating of its effects.

look for nature to finally have the last say about human population after all, thanks to famine and disease resaulting from the rearraingement of long term climate conditions.

the irony of all that, is that we could have all the energy we need, for all the tecnological development we might ever want and enjoy, without ever having to burn anything to generate it. the only reason we arn't, is spelled g.r.e.e.d., along with the usual emotional attatchment to whatever is most familiar to us, even while complaining about it, and even if its killing us.

(ps, no its not slipping "into the sea" either. the san andreas is a slide past each other horizonally type fault, not a raise on one side and lower on the other kind. that is what created baja. it's over where one tectonic plate is turning in relation to another. the great central valley of california, signifigant agricultural basket of the nation and perhapse much of the world, was pretty much largely swampland befor being developed agriculturally. rising sea levels if all the polar ice were to melt, could/would, likely turn it into one again. however, that raise of sea levels bit, ice has six time the vollume of the amount of water it is, so you need six times as much of it to melt, for a corisponding amount of sea level increase. that being said however, these things feed into each other in other ways. the main thing though, is the way climate chainge is likely to affect more mundane things, over the less dramatic long haul, specifically food supply, and disease exasperated by mall nutrition)

dryer conditions will of course lead to more fires and more difficulty putting them out. if everything south of bakersfield actually were to be lost, which is far from the case here, even remotely, this would be no loss to the REAL california.

so to say "rip california" is another one of those "rumors of my demise" being "greatly exagerated"

global warming is of course real, and triggered, if not completly caused, and it might be that too, at least for it to be occuring at this time, but the use of combustion to generate energy and propel transportation, times the excessive numbers of the human species. fires, like wars, may be one of the LEAST devistating of its effects.

look for nature to finally have the last say about human population after all, thanks to famine and disease resaulting from the rearraingement of long term climate conditions.

the irony of all that, is that we could have all the energy we need, for all the tecnological development we might ever want and enjoy, without ever having to burn anything to generate it. the only reason we arn't, is spelled g.r.e.e.d., along with the usual emotional attatchment to whatever is most familiar to us, even while complaining about it, and even if its killing us.

Uh, while fission isn't actually "Burning" as such, it does destroy it's source. And non-nuclear power won't provide all the power we need.

Uh, while fission isn't actually "Burning" as such, it does destroy it's source. And non-nuclear power won't provide all the power we need.

actually the COMBINATION of noncombustion sources of energy: wind, solar, geothermal, modest and responsibly located hydro, wave and tidal action, and so on, can and WILL, and will, at some point in humanity's future, should our species survive itself that long HAVE to. with or without nuclear taking up some very small percentage of the slack. most likely never more then five to fifteen percent.

no, i'm not an advocate of nuclear energy, its just something that is there, that might take up some small percentage of the slack if absolutely neccessary to do so.

the breakdown looks something like this: solar+wind=32%, hydro=41%, there's you 73% right there. the old propiganda song and dance that no SINGLE alternative can carry the day is pointless, as no SINGLE poluting source can do so either. it takes the COMBINATION of oil and coal AND hydro and a few nukes, to make what we have now.

so pointing out that no ONE clean alternative can alone do it is meaningless. (and i do completely aggree, nuclear fission is neither completly clean, nor eternally sustainable, and fussion is still a pie in the sky theoretical potential, waiting to be developed. but photovoltaics are real and practical now, as is windfarming at all scales, and geothermal, much to my own surprise, turns out to be much more widely potentially available, then i had ever, as recently as fifteen years ago, even imagined)

California's history of clear cutting, sub tropical climate, and a few other bad ecological habits combined with global warming are the big perpetrators. Its likely the fire was started by some idiot as well.

California's history of clear cutting, sub tropical climate, and a few other bad ecological habits combined with global warming are the big perpetrators. Its likely the fire was started by some idiot as well.

precisely. only the subtropical climate is only in the part of the state (south of the tahatchapies) that would be no loss to the rest of it.

Are they going to be able to put these damm fires out?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/13/wildfires/index.html



Is this what's in store for us all because of the dammed global warming?

California's had wildfires like that every year that I've been alive. And there are, IIRC, Native American tales about that region just being left to burn.

I don't think it's global warming. Human stupidity, maybe, but not global warming.

wooohooo no more cali.

:shock:

Actually, LA might easily be one of the winners out of Global Warming. If it moves to a true tropical climate instead of sub-tropical arid, the wildfire problem will decrease with the increase in humidity.

Malaria, FTW!

Malaria, FTW!

I didn't say there wouldn't be negative effects...:D

actually the COMBINATION of noncombustion sources of energy: wind, solar, geothermal, modest and responsibly located hydro, wave and tidal action, and so on, can and WILL, and will, at some point in humanity's future, should our species survive itself that long HAVE to. with or without nuclear taking up some very small percentage of the slack. most likely never more then five to fifteen percent.

no, i'm not an advocate of nuclear energy, its just something that is there, that might take up some small percentage of the slack if absolutely neccessary to do so.

the breakdown looks something like this: solar+wind=32%, hydro=41%, there's you 73% right there. the old propiganda song and dance that no SINGLE alternative can carry the day is pointless, as no SINGLE poluting source can do so either. it takes the COMBINATION of oil and coal AND hydro and a few nukes, to make what we have now.

so pointing out that no ONE clean alternative can alone do it is meaningless. (and i do completely aggree, nuclear fission is neither completly clean, nor eternally sustainable, and fussion is still a pie in the sky theoretical potential, waiting to be developed. but photovoltaics are real and practical now, as is windfarming at all scales, and geothermal, much to my own surprise, turns out to be much more widely potentially available, then i had ever, as recently as fifteen years ago, even imagined)

I find your percentages a little too optimistic.
Wind and solar have infrastructure issues.
Solar you need to have storage batteries to store some of the power during the day for use at night. which creates a large cost in infrastructure and also needs twice the photo electric cells.
In order for wind to work you have to have wind power scatter a crossed the country to equalize when areas don't have wind. This requires A for there to be 2 or 3 times the possible wind production and the killer huge upgrades to transmissions lines nation wide every time you increase power output anywhere because in order to maintain grid integrity you may have to send that power anywhere in the grid.

Hydro. there is a slim to none likely hood of there being any more dams being built in the US or Western Europe. the disruption of fish is just too high.
For tidal power generation there are several issues. not everyone lives near a coast so the need for increase expenditures on transmission lines.
2. tidal power generations impact on turtles and of fish that spawn(several are critically endangered) on the coast has not been studied fully.

where as efficient(see the latest generation in Europe) nuclear plants have less Co2 emissions volt for volt (counting from manufacture to end life) then wind or solar energy generation sources. And can simply be placed within existing infrastructure.

and most estimates place world wide nuclear reserves at several enough to last several thousand years. (the 50 years estimate is from know reserves which were mostly all discovered 100 years a go by scientist studing radioactivity.)

Id say nuclear energy is easily a 75-85% source of our clean energy in the future. I cant see wind and solar providing more then 10% of the US's energy needs.

The big thing with the fires right now is how close they are together, and how much wind is constantly blowing. I live right down the street (well, the 118 freeway, same thing in California) from them, and we're getting wind gusts around 60mph. Air quality sucks, but that's kind of life in California :/

The fires probably wouldn't be so bad (in terms of destroying residential areas, anyway,) if Cali got serious about water management. Sure, it's in a drought right now, but it's not like there's actually been no rain. Rainwater harvesting ftw.

I find your percentages a little too optimistic.
Wind and solar have infrastructure issues.
Solar you need to have storage batteries to store some of the power during the day for use at night. which creates a large cost in infrastructure and also needs twice the photo electric cells.
In order for wind to work you have to have wind power scatter a crossed the country to equalize when areas don't have wind. This requires A for there to be 2 or 3 times the possible wind production and the killer huge upgrades to transmissions lines nation wide every time you increase power output anywhere because in order to maintain grid integrity you may have to send that power anywhere in the grid.

Hydro. there is a slim to none likely hood of there being any more dams being built in the US or Western Europe. the disruption of fish is just too high.
For tidal power generation there are several issues. not everyone lives near a coast so the need for increase expenditures on transmission lines.
2. tidal power generations impact on turtles and of fish that spawn(several are critically endangered) on the coast has not been studied fully.

where as efficient(see the latest generation in Europe) nuclear plants have less Co2 emissions volt for volt (counting from manufacture to end life) then wind or solar energy generation sources. And can simply be placed within existing infrastructure.

and most estimates place world wide nuclear reserves at several enough to last several thousand years. (the 50 years estimate is from know reserves which were mostly all discovered 100 years a go by scientist studing radioactivity.)

Id say nuclear energy is easily a 75-85% source of our clean energy in the future. I cant see wind and solar providing more then 10% of the US's energy needs.

Does nobody know how solar is used anymore? You don't use photovoltaics to provide baseline power. You use solar heat plants*, which get cheaper and more efficient as you scale things up, and can easily put out a constant amount of energy to give the grid a base.

And, while I haven't run the calculations, you could probably get a large part of the US's need from a few dozen/hundred of these things in the western states.

*Roughly speaking: lots of mirrors focus suns rays on large heat store --- water or sodium or something. Use this to drive a turbine or stirling engine. This to electricity is simple and well understood. Not much nasty manufacture work beyond large mirrors, massive economies of scale, power output for a long time after the sun goes down.

Uh, while fission isn't actually "Burning" as such, it does destroy it's source. And non-nuclear power won't provide all the power we need.

Well, if you reprocess the fuel and/or use breeder reactors, it's a completely moot point. Even so, there's enough uranium, let alone thorium, available to meet our needs using conventional fission for so long that by the time supply issues arose, technology will have long since rendered nuclear fission obsolete. And that's not even necessarily talking about fusion; renewable sources might be able to fulfill most or all of our electricity needs once the volatility in their supply is resolved or mitigated to acceptable levels.

I find your percentages a little too optimistic.
Wind and solar have infrastructure issues.
Solar you need to have storage batteries to store some of the power during the day for use at night. which creates a large cost in infrastructure and also needs twice the photo electric cells.
In order for wind to work you have to have wind power scatter a crossed the country to equalize when areas don't have wind. This requires A for there to be 2 or 3 times the possible wind production and the killer huge upgrades to transmissions lines nation wide every time you increase power output anywhere because in order to maintain grid integrity you may have to send that power anywhere in the grid.

Hydro. there is a slim to none likely hood of there being any more dams being built in the US or Western Europe. the disruption of fish is just too high.
For tidal power generation there are several issues. not everyone lives near a coast so the need for increase expenditures on transmission lines.
2. tidal power generations impact on turtles and of fish that spawn(several are critically endangered) on the coast has not been studied fully.

where as efficient(see the latest generation in Europe) nuclear plants have less Co2 emissions volt for volt (counting from manufacture to end life) then wind or solar energy generation sources. And can simply be placed within existing infrastructure.

and most estimates place world wide nuclear reserves at several enough to last several thousand years. (the 50 years estimate is from know reserves which were mostly all discovered 100 years a go by scientist studing radioactivity.)

Id say nuclear energy is easily a 75-85% source of our clean energy in the future. I cant see wind and solar providing more then 10% of the US's energy needs.

Turbines in the wind belt. Solar where applicable. Same for hydro-electric dams. THEN nuke plants in the few remaining places. You don't put a nuke plant where windmill farms will work. A nuke plant needs nuke techs and a whole bunch of security. A windmill farm needs someone that went to trade school and owns a cellphone & shotgun.

wooohooo no more cali.

Don't be jealous because we're better people who live in a more perfect place than you do.

Too lazy to copy, so I'm just going to say ditto to what CtoaN and Cameroi said--it's not going anywhere, and if it was, it would only be the half that sucked, anyway.

The big thing with the fires right now is how close they are together, and how much wind is constantly blowing. I live right down the street (well, the 118 freeway, same thing in California) from them, and we're getting wind gusts around 60mph. Air quality sucks, but that's kind of life in California :/

No, that's life in SoCal. As evidenced by your mention of "the 118".

The fires probably wouldn't be so bad (in terms of destroying residential areas, anyway,) if Cali got serious about water management. Sure, it's in a drought right now, but it's not like there's actually been no rain. Rainwater harvesting ftw.

There's been damn little. But you're right, we'd be sitting pretty if we didn't have to send all of the rain that we collect to the barren cesspit of civilization called Los Angeles.

Avast! if only it was florida, America's Cockland, that was burning.

Avast! if only it was florida, America's Cockland, that was burning.

Y'know, I just noticed what Florida looks like...

Um, this is normal? As in there are wildfires every year?

Um, this is normal? As in there are wildfires every year?

Yes. Some notable ones

I was evacuated back in 2003 (at 1am for fuck's sake) due to a truly massive wildfire.in what was probably theworst wildfire season EVER

2005 we had the Esperanza Fire which killed 4 firefighters

2007 Malibu BURNED (IIRC)

and now this

No, that's life in SoCal. As evidenced by your mention of "the 118".

Not if you live by the beeach. I love the sea breeze. :)

I find your percentages a little too optimistic.
Wind and solar have infrastructure issues.
Solar you need to have storage batteries to store some of the power during the day for use at night. which creates a large cost in infrastructure and also needs twice the photo electric cells.
In order for wind to work you have to have wind power scatter a crossed the country to equalize when areas don't have wind. This requires A for there to be 2 or 3 times the possible wind production and the killer huge upgrades to transmissions lines nation wide every time you increase power output anywhere because in order to maintain grid integrity you may have to send that power anywhere in the grid.

Hydro. there is a slim to none likely hood of there being any more dams being built in the US or Western Europe. the disruption of fish is just too high.

Actually you can make a fish pass to allow them through the dam, the firm I worked for over the summer was designing one. I don't know how effective they actually are, but they exist. Of course theres still probably no way to get that percentage (at current consumption) from hydro, even if you dammed everything feasibly possible. Of course unless you're going to build an earthen dam, you have to make it out of concrete, which releases tons of CO2, both in the manufacture of the cement, and when it actually reacts to create a concrete structure.

Why the fuck are we even talking about this one? Doesn't anyone remember the wildfires last year? Or from even earlier?

We have fires. They go POOF! eventually. Big goddamn deal.

To Ryadn: To hell with you, I'm on that side, bitch. CTOAN is mad because it always rains up north. XP

Fire! Huhu! Fire! Fire!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Cornholio.gif

Tell me when Los Angeles is Burning (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxoD9zWY9Rg).

Oh, and then there's that thing with "It never rains in Southern California". So you get fires. And if it does rain, you get mudslides. Make up your mind. (Not even getting started with earthquakes!)

Too lazy to copy, so I'm just going to say ditto to what CtoaN and Cameroi said--it's not going anywhere, and if it was, it would only be the half that sucked, anyway.

Would you please just have your ridiculous civil war and get over it?

There's been damn little. But you're right, we'd be sitting pretty if we didn't have to send all of the rain that we collect to the barren cesspit of civilization called Los Angeles.

The California Aqueduct flows north, not south. You're all stealing your water from either the Sierras or the Colorado.