[mythtv-users] Underground vs. Overhead Utilities

Russ Dill russ.dill at gmail.com
Wed Jan 28 18:15:59 UTC 2009


On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Brian Wood <beww at beww.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 15:53:17 R. G. Newbury wrote:
>> Brad DerManouelian wrote:
>> > On Jan 27, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Brian Wood wrote:
>> >> Underground utilities cost a lot more to install and maintain than
>> >> overhead
>> >> ones. Ask the average person if they are willing to pay more for their
>> >> house
>> >> to have utilities underground and guess what they will say.
>> >>
>> >> They can be a bear to maintain, especialy in areas where it snows a
>> >> lot. Try
>> >> finding one of those little  pedestals in a bunch of snowdrifts.
>> >>
>> >> Of course in L.A., where it rarely snows, you have to use a torch
>> >> (american
>> >> meaning) to kill all of the black widows in the pedestal before you can
>> >> safely work.
>> >
>> > Do you have numbers to back that up? I suspect it's expensive to replace
>> > down wires and possible more insurance money for workers to climb poles
>> > than to dig. I wonder if long-term there is actually cost-savings in
>> > burying the wires where people can't easily get to them with cars,
>> > kites, lightning, ladders, etc.
>>
>> I would make a small wager that doing a subdivision, etc. entirely
>> underground ends up cheaper and is cheaper to maintain, then having
>> electrical etc, on poles.
>>
>> Water and sewage have to be underground to start, so you have to dig. It
>> is not that much more expensive to add pipe for natural gas, electrical,
>> cable and telephone. Then you only have watch out for hungry backhoes...
>> and worry about broken water-mains.
>
> I have never heard of any place where water, gas and electric were in the same
> tranch. Can you imagine what would happen if a backhoe did hit that
> collection of utilities? i wouldn't want to be anywhere near it.
>
> As was pointed out, the cable itself is more expensive for underground use. In
> most locations high voltage (at least primary, if not secondary) has to be
> isolated from low-voltage stuff like telephone and cable TV by a buffer of
> sand or other method.
>
> A brief check of the internet will show that you would lose your small wager:
>
>
> http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:h2K3uhArWM8J:www.sceg.com/NR/rdonlyres/465E6534-2FFB-4069-BF84-81465AEEF887/0/Undergroundvs.pdf+utility+cost+underground+vs.
> +overhead&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
> (watch the wrapping if you want to go to this link)
>
> The cost to place new transmission lines underground is about 8 to 10 times
> the cost to build
> overhead lines. The cost to build underground distribution lines is typically
> four to six times
> the cost of underground distribution lines
>
> I also found this:
> http://www.talgov.com/you/electric/tline_construct.cfm
>
>
> In many cases there is an expectation that the economic benefits associated
> with underground electric installations are significant enough to offset the
> additional cost of those facilities. Unfortunately, the economic benefits
> associated with underground electric facilities are, in most cases, minimal
> compared to the difference in the cost of installation.
>
> Then there was this:
> http://www.atc-projects.com/TL16.shtml
>
> -- Why doesn't ATC place electric transmission lines underground?
> Underground lines are considerably more costly and environmentally invasive
> than overhead lines. For this reason, the state Public Service Commission
> rarely supports or approves underground construction of transmission lines.
> It is ATC's responsibility to consider many factors, including cost and
> environmental impacts, when proposing new electric transmission lines. The
> most affordable industry standard is overhead power lines.
>
> Also, very high primary transmission lines (say, over 300KV) can't be placed
> underground at all under any circumstances:
>
> For higher voltage transmission lines (i.e., 345-kilovolt), undergrounding is
> not an option because at that voltage the lines cannot dissipate heat and
> become capacity bottlenecks on the system, defeating the purpose of building
> them. Less than 1 percent of ATC's 9,100-mile network of transmission lines
> is underground.
>
> Finally, check out:
> http://tdworld.com/mag/power_survey_unearths_trends/
>
> Most people in the utility industry understand that underground utilities are
> not generally a "good thing", while most proponents of such service usually
> consider only the visual impact, not the cost and performance.

I've lived in phoenix for around 30 years, both in areas with above
ground lines and below ground lines. The areas with below ground lines
are not just more visually appealing (higher property values) but also
have much more reliable power. During the summer, when you need power
the most, storms tend to snap overhead lines like twigs.

I don't know if the total repair and downtime costs ever make up for
the extra build costs, but the increased uptime and visual appeal is
definitely worth it to me.


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list