maus said:
> On 2022-01-08, Richard Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> wrote:
>> maus said:
>>> On 2022-01-05, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05-Jan-22 13:21, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>>> maus said:
>>>>>> On 2022-01-03, Nicholas D. Richards <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <squdl0$1afm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Dennis Davis
>>>>>>> <dennisdavis@fastmail.fm> on Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 08:54:56 awoke Nicholas
>>>>>>> from his slumbers and wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Bryson, somewhere, mentioned a coal mine in Pennsylvania-I-think
>>>>> that caught fire manymany years ago and isn't likely to stop till it
>>>>> runs out..
>>>>>
>>>> A lot of the waste tips at UK coal mines have smouldered away for
>>>> decades. Of course we aren't adding to the problem anymore.
>>>
>>> I wonder what the areas in the US, Australia, and Canada where massive
>>> amounts of trees have been cut down to produce wood pellets to power the
>>> Drax boilers, look like now?
>>
>> It'd probably depend on the local regs re cleanup ? In ways that would
>> be obvious to start with, but after that, stuff grows in ways that
>> depend on how the area was left ...
>>
>> If you don't burn it, it produces methane when it rots. Perhaps we
>> should Ban Trees ? Bring Back The Goat ?
>>
>
> depends. The Anti-Global-Warming people in california are blaming the
> wildfires on regulations that were brought in a few years ago, banning
> the cutting-back of trees and shrubs under power lines, because it is
> antitree or some other daft reason.
>
> The idea of not cutting back under powerlines seems even dafter than the
> other mad things being proposed at the moment.

There are a lot of strange ideas around, I'm at a loss as regards
ranking them ... The idea that letting everything grow provides fuel for
bigger fires when something catches has been around for a while. Do
wildfires start more under power lines ?

I suppose even asking the question could make room for some bizarre
"theories".

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 09/01/2022 11:52, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 2022-01-08, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
>> On 2022-01-08, Richard Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> maus said:
>>>> On 2022-01-05, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05-Jan-22 13:21, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>>>> maus said:
>>>>>>> On 2022-01-03, Nicholas D. Richards <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <squdl0$1afm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Dennis Davis
>>>>>>>> <dennisdavis@fastmail.fm> on Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 08:54:56 awoke Nicholas
>>>>>>>> from his slumbers and wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Bryson, somewhere, mentioned a coal mine in Pennsylvania-I-think
>>>>>> that caught fire manymany years ago and isn't likely to stop till it
>>>>>> runs out..
>>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of the waste tips at UK coal mines have smouldered away for
>>>>> decades. Of course we aren't adding to the problem anymore.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder what the areas in the US, Australia, and Canada where massive
>>>> amounts of trees have been cut down to produce wood pellets to power the
>>>> Drax boilers, look like now?
>>>
>>> It'd probably depend on the local regs re cleanup ? In ways that would
>>> be obvious to start with, but after that, stuff grows in ways that
>>> depend on how the area was left ...
>>>
>>> If you don't burn it, it produces methane when it rots. Perhaps we
>>> should Ban Trees ? Bring Back The Goat ?
>>>
>>
>> depends. The Anti-Global-Warming people in california are blaming the
>> wildfires on regulations that were brought in a few years ago, banning
>> the cutting-back of trees and shrubs under power lines, because it is
>> antitree or some other daft reason.
>
> They have a point. Fires are an important part of the forest lifecycle.
> Well-meaning but uninformed Americans passed laws that banned controlled
> burning. As a result detritus built up until when the fires eventually break
> out they are devastating and uncontrollable.
>
> I think it's a uniquely American promble. Elsewhere the management of
> wildernesses are done by governments.

In Australia it used to be done by Aborigines - then they got stopped
and followed the US model - to similar devastation....

C

On 09/01/2022 13:56, ChrisND@privacy.net wrote:
> On 09/01/2022 11:52, Bernard Peek wrote:
>> They have a point. Fires are an important part of the forest lifecycle.
>> Well-meaning but uninformed Americans passed laws that banned controlled
>> burning. As a result detritus built up until when the fires eventually
>> break
>> out they are devastating and uncontrollable.
>>
>> I think it's a uniquely American promble. Elsewhere the management of
>> wildernesses are done by governments.
>
> In Australia it used to be done by Aborigines - then they got stopped
> and followed the US model - to similar devastation....
>
Similar policies are having adverse effects on the moors in the UK, with
the added benefit that Grouse and their food require a number of types
of territory to develop well, which is best maintained by small fires
each year, such as occur naturally on the moorlands.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 8:13:59 AM UTC-6, John Williamson wrote:
> On 09/01/2022 13:56, Chr...@privacy.net wrote:
> > On 09/01/2022 11:52, Bernard Peek wrote:
> >> They have a point. Fires are an important part of the forest lifecycle.
> >> Well-meaning but uninformed Americans passed laws that banned controlled
> >> burning. As a result detritus built up until when the fires eventually
> >> break
> >> out they are devastating and uncontrollable.
> >>
> >> I think it's a uniquely American promble. Elsewhere the management of
> >> wildernesses are done by governments.
> >
> > In Australia it used to be done by Aborigines - then they got stopped
> > and followed the US model - to similar devastation....
> >
> Similar policies are having adverse effects on the moors in the UK, with
> the added benefit that Grouse and their food require a number of types
> of territory to develop well, which is best maintained by small fires
> each year, such as occur naturally on the moorlands.
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

The area underneath power lines is a minuscule percentage of the entire forest.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 06:41:10 -0800 (PST)
Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The area underneath power lines is a minuscule percentage of the entire
> forest.

Quite, also the problem solved by clearing growth under power lines
is not ignition of forestry but power cuts. I very much doubt that power
lines are a significant factor in starting fires, it's not about preserving
the wilderness but about keeping the wilderness away from the power cables.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 08/01/2022 18:13, maus wrote:
>
> depends. The Anti-Global-Warming people in california are blaming the
> wildfires on regulations that were brought in a few years ago, banning
> the cutting-back of trees and shrubs under power lines, because it is
> antitree or some other daft reason.
>
> The idea of not cutting back under powerlines seems even dafter than the
> other mad things being proposed at the moment.

It seems that they're not opposed to cutting back around power lines,
just opposed to how much cutting would be done. And it appears that it's
a legal obligation to do some cutting back.

https://www.sierraclub.org/california/cnrcc/pge-clearcuts-power-lines

On 09/01/2022 15:38, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 06:41:10 -0800 (PST)
> Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The area underneath power lines is a minuscule percentage of the entire
>> forest.
>
> Quite, also the problem solved by clearing growth under power lines
> is not ignition of forestry but power cuts. I very much doubt that power
> lines are a significant factor in starting fires, it's not about preserving
> the wilderness but about keeping the wilderness away from the power cables.

I think growth over power lines is more of a threat to power supply than
growth under them.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 19:41:21 +0000
Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:

> On 09/01/2022 15:38, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 06:41:10 -0800 (PST)
> > Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The area underneath power lines is a minuscule percentage of the entire
> >> forest.
> >
> > Quite, also the problem solved by clearing growth under power
> > lines is not ignition of forestry but power cuts. I very much doubt
> > that power lines are a significant factor in starting fires, it's not
> > about preserving the wilderness but about keeping the wilderness away
> > from the power cables.
>
> I think growth over power lines is more of a threat to power supply than
> growth under them.

I was thinking of growth under them becoming growth over, and
through, them with inconvenient consequences.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 09-Jan-22 19:41, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 09/01/2022 15:38, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 06:41:10 -0800 (PST)
>> Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The area underneath power lines is a minuscule percentage of the entire
>>> forest.
>>
>>     Quite, also the problem solved by clearing growth under power lines
>> is not ignition of forestry but power cuts. I very much doubt that power
>> lines are a significant factor in starting fires, it's not about
>> preserving
>> the wilderness but about keeping the wilderness away from the power
>> cables.
>
> I think growth over power lines is more of a threat to power supply than
> growth under them.

Voltage dependant.
High voltage lines tend to be... high up.
Medium voltage lines are slung lower down, & undergrowth can become
overgrowth - then trees can drop a branch onto them.

The protection circuits on those lines can at least try to deal with that.
If a short trips out the circuit, it will reconnect after a modest delay
to see if the branch has gone away, courtesy of gravity.
If not, it will give it a good blast to try & burn the short away.

--
Sam Plusnet