Why Aren't Powergrids Underground?

jonging asks: "It is common knowledge that an underground power grid is less susceptible to the effect of a large thunderstorm. The American Transmission Company cites numerous reasons why it (and other power companies I assume) do not bury their transmission lines underground (e.g. environmental concerns, cost of installation and repair, etc.). Exactly how detrimental are underground transmission lines to the environment? Wouldn't the time spent without a power outage generate more than enough revenue to offset initial costs? Aren't the need for repairs in cities with successful underground power grids rare?" The linked article goes into extensive detail about the disadvantages in initial costs of putting in underground lines, but doesn't go into any detail about the maintenance costs of either option. With storms getting worse and worse (Maryland, DC and Northern Virginia have weathered torrential downfalls this week), might underground lines prove more resistant to storm-related power outages?

Comments

because

[MrSquirrel]

More expensive to dig, harder to cross roads/othershit when digging, MUCH easier to repair above-ground lines than below-ground lines (all you need is a cherry-picker truck), and what would squirrels walk on if there weren't above-ground power lines?

Re:It costs money?

[Pharmboy]

Cost is about TCO, not just initial. It depends on how far out you extend your costs whether it would be worthwhile to the power companies or not. This, I have no idea.

example: We get damage in large item truck shipments. Averaged over ALL our shipments, it costs about $20 per shipment. We spent $5 per shipment to reduce it to an average of $10 per shipment (half the damage). Our net gain is $5 per shipment, plus less hassles with damage.

For about $40 per shipment, we could get almost NO damage, but it would not meet the TCO compared to just spending the extra $5. The goal isn't to stop ALL damage, it is the lowest average cost for all shipments. They are no different.

So there will be SOME areas where underground meets the TCO spread over, say, 10 years. Some won't. They key is having the guts to sacrifice short term profits for long term gains, which is tough if the CEO has stock options that expire in 3 years.

Water

[Undefined Parameter]

My apartment complex has its power fed in through a buried line, and I can attest to one good reason why power companies may not want to bury all (or even most) of their power lines: water.

My power has gone out three times already, this year, due to water seeping in where it shouldn't and causing a major short. Aside from the obvious risk of losing power, there's also the possibility of pedestrians and pets being electrocuted.

~UP

Re:DC

[StikyPad]

I'd bet money to marshmallows that you're not on the same grid as the White House.

But yeah, there are 1 or 2 other important buildings in DC, so keeping them powered is probably just a bit of a priority, even though most of them probably have generators. The DC area seemed to have the most stable power of anywhere I've lived, going out only occasionally during freezing rain/ice storms, and never for more than a few hours.

The place I live now.. let's just say the clock on my microwave is rarely accurate for more than 48 hours straight. They're working on putting power lines underground in the "near future," but I'm taking it upon myself to get some solar panels, an inverter, and a nice bank of batteries. Even if they ever stabilize the grid, I'll still save a few bucks on my power bill.

Re:It costs money?

[MrNougat]

Cost is about TCO, not just initial.

The above statement is true. However, the decision to spend less money on the front end and more on the back end has nothing to do with the aforementioned truth.

What matters is profit today. Spend as little money as possible today while taking in as much revenue as possible today. This makes the stock price go up today, which makes your options (someone else mentioned these) go up today, and the Board of Directors happy today.

Do not concern yourself with trivialities like "tomorrow" or "TCO" or "long-term survivability." By the time any of that comes around, you'll have jumped (or been pushed) to another company that you can squeeze the same way. If you just so happen to still be around tomorrow, blame it on the office staff for using too many paperclips, and stop subsudizing employees' soft drinks.

Once you understand that business leaders are not running businesses for the long term, or even the medium term, it's very easy to understand the (il)logic of their actions. The company exists to be soaked by execs until it dies.

(Here, let me post my own reply: "Bitter much?")