It seems kind of primitive to have power lines just hanging on poles, right?

Bit unsightly too

Is it just a cost issue and is it actually significant when considering the cost of power loss on society (work, hospital, food, etc)?

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 hours ago

    physics. cost.

    lived a lot of places, some of which (like here in PNW) have neighborhood buried cables. It’s lovely, and hella reliable. We don’t lose power in windstorms or floods or snow.

    It is expensive. And not appropriate for all places - for example, places with high water tables won’t be able to do it, like Louisiana - you can’t keep the water out year round even with a billion pumps. Also hard to do in places with bedrock near the surface for expense reasons.

  • EdibleSource@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 hours ago

    One reason for my region: overhead lines on wooden poles will better withstand an earthquake and will be quicker to rebuild after a major disaster. Stuff underground will get all shifted around or filled with water and mud.

  • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Don’t make the mistake of looking at one region and generalising to a universal. Where are you looking at?

    Here in Switzerland practically everything <1kV is buried.
    For high voltage lines they have only built one section to experiment so far. It’s pretty expensive, heats the ground a bit and blocks water with all the concrete, so it’s not so clear if it’s a good choice for agriculture happening above.

    I’ve wondered a lot why they don’t bury more infrastructure in hurricane regions in the US for example.

    • Soulg@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It sure is frustrating as an American to be like “why is x not done this other way that’s better and makes more sense?” And for the almost universal answer to be “we do it that way in <European country>”

    • hector@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Everywhere. La fires were caused by sparking lines, previous fires as well. Ice storms knock out power anywhere, it makes sense to bury them when possible.

    • gustofwind@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I’ve seen them buried in some hurricane prone areas here but not many of them. I don’t think they’d need to bury most of the high voltage lines as those are easy to maintain above ground but there are a lot of disaster prone areas that could benefit from residential power being buried locally

      So yes we’d need to be smart about choosing the appropriate places for it but nearly all the places that could use it dont because $$

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Harder to maintain if it is underground.

      ? fewer calls for cables cut by trees / stupid people, known junction boxes in the ground placed at regular intervals to access it (not having to guess which set of poles are carrying for which residences etc), if it’s cut you’re still going to have to replace the line, that’s gonna happen whether they’re 20’ up or 3’ down… less working at height which is a great boon to safety.

      I’d ask lineworkers tbh, I can see lots of advantages for underground but cost may override everything else. and physics, some places are never gonna work for it - wet lowlands, bedrock etc…

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Saving money is a valid choice, but it may just be short term outlook here.

        My brother used to work for a public electric utility and they buried their power lines where possible. The neighboring private utility guys always pointed out how much cheaper their lines were to maintain. But the public utility had solid data providing they saved money over the long term, by better protecting their lines

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Yeah, this makes sense to me. Less likely for something to go wrong but more difficult to deal with when it does. The end result is a product of both of those, so depends on how much less likely and how much more difficult.

  • Squizzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    17 hours ago

    You don’t pay for all the space between poles. Its also cheaper ad quicker to stand a pole than to build a manhole.

    It would be better for everyone if was all underground. It is purely cost with a smidgen of time efficiency.

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        You would pay thousands for each meter of duct built including resurfacing whereas you would likely stand two poles with the same distance for less than a grand.

        Take it that overhead is more likely to cause future issues, they would need to be significantly more for that to be the case. Where this comes in is regulations on SLAs and fines, loss of service costs. But on a pure cost basis it likely would take a long time for underground to balance out.

        Companies also dont care and would prefer to lower build costs at the risk of future operational costs

        • hector@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          It would definitely depend on circumstances on this one. In california it would pay for itself with less fires alone. But all areas would have less service costs fixing them after storms. My power just went out a few weeks back here, and last year north a ways all the power got knocked out, some for weeks, in an ice storm that left .5 to over 1 inch of ice on stuff or something.

        • hector@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          At best they do not care no. They are extracting money for donors. As such more often they oppose more efficient ways of doing things on behalf of the ones doing it now.

  • krull_krull@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Let me reverse the question

    Why do power cables need to be buried in non dense urban area?

    Yes it will make it a bit ugly, but so what?. It’s not like it being ugly will do anything anyway. It’s not like being a bit ugly is a very annoying thing unlike when there a trash heap and it smells bad.

    I think we should just keep it up there for sub-urban and rural areas, and invest the saved money on other things.

    Also, im from developing country so my perspective is bit different for this topic.

  • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    In Germany: They are in the more urban areas.
    The more rural have it either on street poles, poles on the roof, both or underground.

    • brandon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      One point for above ground is that it is far easier to know when it’s damaged to the point of being unsafe for the general public and much simpler and quicker to repair. For underground, you don’t know that until there is a failure that causes outages or someone/something gets hurt.

      While I have seen numerous downed power lines, I have not know anything actual hurt by them. On the other hand, I have known multiple dogs who’ve died stepping on top of electrified access points while out for walks. While this is purely anecdotal, it’s not black and white either.

      Other underground utilities have more obvious failure signs to the public (smells, flooding, water damage etc) and generally have minimal short term consequences while electrical faults tend to go unnoticed until a significant failure event (i.e. power goes out or something gets killed). Our town has hundreds of reported natural gas leaks, that is take years to fix while pole repairs tend to happen within an hour of being reported with police standing by until the crew shows up.

  • BodePlotHole@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Almost anything infrastructure related, however it exists is probably the most efficient cost/maintenance ratio for that area. That is basically the only requirement for the engineers in charge of designing that kind of shit.

    Unless you’re the Texas power grid. Then it’s literally the cheapest possible way to still be able to bill people for it.

  • zxqwas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s roughly 5-7 times as expensive per km to bury the cables. It’s mainly a cost issue.

    It makes sense in dense areas, it does not make sense everywhere. Critical infrastructure has backup power anyway because digging does not solve all reliability issues.

  • Fedditor385@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Cost and ease of maintenance. Isn’t it obvious? The only ugly thing is instead of having separated multuple conductors without isolation on the wire, you can have isolated wires, and twisted together, so instead of 50 wires throughout the air, you would have one thicker.

          • neidu3@sh.itjust.worksM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            I grew up far from it, in a vastly different terrain and climate, and I’ve lived here kost of my life. But I remember having a cartoon book as a kid that depicted a house in a swamp (I think it may have been one of the books about The Woozles), and the memory resurfaced when I had to drive from Houston TX to Galliano LA. It was swampy to say the least. Many of my fellow countrymen have accidentally hit a moose while driving. I’m the only one I know who has run over an alligator.

              • neidu3@sh.itjust.worksM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 day ago

                It’s pretty dangerous, yes. But since moose are so tall, you usually hit the legs, and thr beast comes in through the windshield. Duck, and it’ll pass over you. However, they might then start to flail and kick you from the backseat out of panic.