Having been caught in an ice storm in Maryland which killed the power for
several days, I have to say they suck. Besides, you can't fault Canada for
having worse weather then California.
Canada does manage to get a lot of things right, the theory I heard from a
canadian friend was that they wait for the US to try something out then
find out where they screwed it up. But as for datacenters, I have also
heard the theory that canadian customs inspects every packet crossing the
border, and that one I tend to believe.
Having been caught in an ice storm in Maryland which killed the
power for several days, I have to say they suck. Besides, you can't
fault Canada for having worse weather then California.
On the contrary, Quebec has much better weather than California,
although I will agree that California's tends to be hotter.
The 1998 ice storm was a predictable once in a century event, although
of course you can't predict when in the century it'll occur. The
newer electrical distribution infrastructure wasn't damaged anywhere
near as badly as the older stuff (newer was built stronger), but the
likelihood of such a storm was low enough that it didn't seem worth
hurrying along the upgrades. I'm sure this is a tradeoff with which
all system managers can sympathize.
[ On Monday, April 30, 2001 at 00:35:51 (-0400), Richard A. Steenbergen wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Canada - Land of ice and snow (was RE: California power ... unplugged)
Having been caught in an ice storm in Maryland which killed the power for
several days, I have to say they suck. Besides, you can't fault Canada for
having worse weather then California.
Canada does manage to get a lot of things right, the theory I heard from a
canadian friend was that they wait for the US to try something out then
find out where they screwed it up.
The most recent issue of IEEE Canadian Review (spring 2001 #37) contains
a very interesting article titled "De-icing EHV Overhead Transmission
Lines by Short-circuit Currents". The cover on the photo shows a
stunning picture of a successful test at IREQ's (Hydro Qu�bec) out-door
high-power laboratory.
The only thing that confused me about the paper was the conclusion that
the effect could only be used on 315 kV lines but not on 735 kV lines
because the process would be too detrimental to network stability and
would affect too many industrial customers and might cause exessive
tripping in the network. To my estimation any amount of temporary loss
would be more acceptable than downed transmission lines that take weeks
or months to rebuild. Certainly if customers could be warned of
necessity of a de-icing the "damage" could be minimised.
There's also an interesting article in that same issue with the title
"Electricity Deregulation: Doubts Brought On by the California Debacle"
[ On , April 30, 2001 at 01:05:04 (-0400), John R. Levine wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Canada - Land of ice and snow (was RE: California power ... unplugged)
The 1998 ice storm was a predictable once in a century event, although
of course you can't predict when in the century it'll occur. The
newer electrical distribution infrastructure wasn't damaged anywhere
near as badly as the older stuff (newer was built stronger), but the
likelihood of such a storm was low enough that it didn't seem worth
hurrying along the upgrades. I'm sure this is a tradeoff with which
all system managers can sympathize.
and of course there are two ways of choosing when to rebuild older and
less reliable infrastructure: a) pick a date and get to it; or b) wait
for it to fail.....
