Is this possible? Is it just a matter of spending the money to upgrade the infrastructure?
The problem with some kind of packetized transfer of energy between storage batteries is not only is any reasonable packet far more than enough energy to start a forest fire, even the mere capacitance of a long power line, even if given infinite fast commo and protocols, is still way more than enough energy to start a forest fire.
There is no technological way to push energy thru a tinderbox without having occasional failures aka forest fires. You can fix that by only running wires thru a treeless desert, and if you don't have a desert you can make one, or you can not run wires. The idea of only running long distance electricity along a deforested interstate or rail very wide right of way is interesting and would be safe although probably extremely ugly.
Radio waves propagate at the speed of light, and electricity is slower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
It seems a bad investment to try to live there.
"Surf and ski in the same day brah" is an example of a short term benefit.
Much of the ignition risk comes from transformer explosions, air-insulated CB arcs, and line-to-tree arcs.
Transformer explosions are inherently harder to isolate from flammable material in the American distribution system design than they would be in a European 240v system, that's because the US system has to keep LV (110v) runs short so has extensive HV networks with pole-mounted transformers feeding a small number of properties each. 240v systems can tolerate longer LV runs and use larger pad-mounted distribution transformers with about 20x the power rating of American style pole-mount transformers.
In the Euro configuration, you therefore have many fewer transformers which have a least a fence around them with regular vegetation control within it. You can also put these transformers within enclosures. A typical UK rural/suburban arrangement has the transformer air cooled and outside within a fence with breakers and distribution boards inside a brick or GRP hut inside the fence. In urban areas the whole thing is enclosed in its own structure or in the basement of a building.
Anyway you can't do that with American transformers as there are more of them. These will therefore always be an ignition risk. Yes you can step up planned replacement of older models, be more aggressive about keeping the load per transformer down to lengthen lifetime and reduce fault risk but fundamentally they are a risk.
You can replace air insulated CBs with gas-insulated models at significant expense, that will reduce that risk.
Burying cables as I said is horrifically expensive but you could increase the size of the vegetation-cleared right of way around the overheads and step up the clearance schedule.
None of these will remove every source of ignition.
“bury” is, as we say, “non-trival”.
Wait... In the US for household single-phase it is 240V from the pole transformer to the breaker panel, where the 120V is derived by taking one hot or the other against the neutral, and the range/drier/etc 240V circuits are simply across both hots. So there is no difference between EU or US distribution voltages until it gets inside the house. All the US does is add a neutral so that it is easy to get 120V.
My understanding of the standard US system is that the distribution transformer is fed with one phase, the secondary side of the transformer has a centre-tap neutral and two live phases which have 120v to neutral and 240v phase-phase.
Good to know.
> My understanding of the standard US system is that the distribution transformer is fed with one phase, the secondary side of the transformer has a centre-tap neutral and two live phases which have 120v to neutral and 240v phase-phase.
yes
And yes, nearly every home is served by 220 V phase-to-phase with a center tap. Am I understanding right that UK houses are only fed by single phase at 230 V with neutral?
Is the reason we have pole mounted transformers in the US really because of voltage drop though? It seems to me the reason would be they are inherently smaller due to the lower voltages, higher frequency, and only converting one phase from the distribution side. The UK has lower frequency, higher voltage, and apparently has three output phases which seems like it would require a larger transformer.
That's right, typically houses along a street will alternate phases to maintain overall balance. Standard used to be 60A supply but is now 100A which I believe would be considered low in the US but we don't usually have residential air conditioners and houses are smaller and heated with gas.
I have been told that this is the reason but there are other reasons to prefer the US arrangement so it may not be the only one. US system is more resilient to secondary failure because fewer customers are fed per secondary and you have a much more extensive HV network which is more flexible.
UK distribution transformers are much, much larger. Looks like this: https://cms.esi.info/Media/productImages/Expanded_Metal_Comp... My point was that it is easier to enclose a smaller number of large assets than a large number of small ones which is relevant to fire risk.
However, the real problem is trees/etc growing too close to the lines, compounded by the extra dry drought conditions throughout CA. Regardless of the type of cable or other technical safety features, power lines are always going to be a fire hazard if they don't receive regular inspection and maintenance. The lesson from these fires is that the existing maintenance schedule is severely inadequate.
Tree branches and existing poled electricity is a tricky subject it seems. Locally, the city, electric company and property owners all blame each other for who should trim the branches around poles.
Often nothing gets done and ice storms come to take them down anyways (at the detriment of the city, electric companies, and property owners).