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

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.