Follow this blog:
RSS

To avoid outages, you can’t just bury power lines

By | October 31, 2012, 10:55 AM PDT

Hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards — power outages occur in these situations because trees, ice and other objects interfere with the power lines in the air, strung along poles and susceptible to damage.

So why don’t we just bury them in the ground? Wouldn’t that lead to fewer outages?

It’s not that easy, Sarah Fecht writes over at Popular Mechanics. The reason that 80 percent of power lines in the United States hang openly in the air is because of cost.

She crunches the numbers so you don’t have to:

For example, in a new suburban neighborhood, installing ordinary overhead power lines costs about $194,000 per mile on average. Installing underground power lines would cost $571,000 per mile. And to retrofit an older suburban neighborhood with underground lines, the costs climb up to an average of $724,000 per mile.

And those aren’t even the high-voltage variety, which cost millions per mile.

It gets worse: even if the lines are buried underground, parts of the grid infrastructure must remain aboveground, leaving the system still susceptible to the elements. (It’s precisely why lower Manhattan is without electricity right now — a substation explosion did the area in.) And those underground lines remain at risk of flooding or misguided digs anyway.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is the editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
54
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Good post.
Concise and to the point.

It is not as easy as some think.
Posted by Hates Idiots
31st Oct
+12 Votes
+ -
But it's a start
No every power line can't be buried but in areas of high risk maybe it justifies the higher cost. I lived in a subdivision in Florida and all our lines were buried. And there were countless times when everyone except us lost power. I had three large pine trees go down as a result of hurricane winds and yes they took out part of my house and my nieghbors but we still had power. Our power grid ia aging and now is the time to look at ways to improve what we have not just say it can't be done.
Posted by saminsc
31st Oct
+4 Votes
+ -
Probably worth the cost
$377,000 per mile for residential power lines -- I wonder how many houses are in that mile? At 100ft per lot, its around 100 houses -- a little less than $4000 per house. Probably the increased property values make up for extra cost. Power poles and lines are ugly!
Posted by Day Dreamer
2nd Nov
-6
hey
Posted by hackerdemon2000@...  |  Below your threshold
-7
Let it die
Posted by NightLife6  |  Below your threshold
+3 Votes
+ -
Buried power lines
So buried powerlines cost? No problem, the power company will pay. Now THAT is the problem.

Will the limited number of people who receive the more reliable power pay the extra cost? Is there any legal mechanism for this anyway? Remember that it is a whole area including people who can't afford higher prices.

Is this really the best way to spend the money? Could more reliable power be secured by increasing the number of feeds to a substation? Or by having more crews available on standby with more spare parts available?

Is there anyone working this out?
Would anyone have the courage to do it anyway, whatever was best?

No answers. The solution will come by asking the right questions.
Posted by cdiamond@...
1st Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
TCO, But Who Has to Pay?
As noted, underground electrical utilities are significantly more expensive to install. Some localities, such as the Florida location mentioned in another post and other coastal areas like Greenville NC, have decided the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of the line makes it cheaper when high-probability storm events mean you will have to restring the poles every five years or so.

There are two potential political obstacles to adopting this solution, however:
1) A regulated utility has to justify its costs to the Public Utility Commission (or equivalent). This "oversight" will frequently force adoption of lowest-initial-cost practices even when they are more costly in the long run.
2) In communities that require the developer of a new subdivision to pay some portion of utility infrastructure costs, developers will vociferously resist anything that costs them a penny more. They will of course pass along all of the additional costs to the property buyer, but worry about competitiveness compared to a similar development down the street in a jurisdiction that doesn't have this requirement.
Posted by mdwalls
Updated - 1st Nov
+8 Votes
+ -
Not quite the truth
Running from the mains to the house or building, through normal soils, electrical (and phone or cable) lines can all be buried at in simple PVC at less than normal cost of putting them on poles. The primary consideration is make sure there is a slope in the piping to a drain so that water that does get in has a way to get out. But the point is, in the majority of cases, in the long run, buried lines are cheaper, especially if planned with expansion in mind.

The above ground maintenance access points are much easier, and in the long run, cheaper to maintain and protect. Few access points make sabotage harder for terrorists or other criminals. Also makes it harder to steal service. While the access points may be vulnerable (they can be hardened at fairly low cost), the buried lines are mcuh better protected from EMP (solar, cosmic, or nuclear).
Posted by Dr_Zinj
1st Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Yes, it's cheap in new development
However, as pointed out in the article. it costs more to replace existing above-ground power lines. Where whole neighborhoods have to be rebuilt after Sandy, they definitely should put the utilities underground - but it would to take a long time and a huge investment to bury the entire power grid. But, hey - people need jobs!
Posted by Greenknight_z
2nd Nov
+6 Votes
+ -
sound like the same story about the roads
So we are a country of if something cost just a bit more we stop, we freak and we make excuses. That sound about what seems to be the real problem, short sighted think because it will hurt profits this quarter.
Posted by Kiljoy616
2nd Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Government is not worried about profits
The government ultimately influences most of the decisions about power lines and the gov't is not driven by quarterly profits. They are short-sighted for many other reasons, but not profits!
Posted by Day Dreamer
2nd Nov
0 Votes
+ -
underground wires
make the tubing out of recycled plastics and under ground transformer ports the same
Posted by wildwolf93446
1st Nov
+10 Votes
+ -
Air vs. Burried
Having lived in both types of areas I can tell you that the burried lines are far more reliable. Pole mounted there are trees, ice storms, wind and snow to deal with. With burried, about the only time we're out of power is when some drunk or lightning hits a transformer. Then there's the added safety since no one is exposed to the lines. If there is that much of a differential, it's still worth the money - especially when building a new area!
Posted by GregGold
1st Nov
+5 Votes
+ -
Underground power lines
I think that the best way to deal with the outage problem is to have more locally generated electricity, even individual or neighborhood units that are now coming on line. This would save the long distance lines and with a local generated power unit, it would be much easier to have it all underground. In the end, it is whether people will demand a better way to maintain service.
Posted by builder50@...
1st Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Also consider the fact...
...that even underground power lines have a finite life, and at at some point will have to be replaced, which will cost more than replacing easily maintained above-ground lines.

My former condo complex was served by underground lines which failed at less than 25 years. The resulting outage was longer and far more expensive than had they been overground. The main purpose for them being underground in the first place wasn't so much about reliability as it was aesthetics.

Which approach is best is entirely dependent upon the particular locality you are talking about. If you are talking about a locality where a line-destroying event only happens every 50 years or so, underground definitely would not make economic sense on that basis alone.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 1st Nov
+7 Votes
+ -
That is strange !
What is your geographic location ? I live in Mumbai India. My business premises are served by underground cables supplying 3 phase 440 VAC. These have been there since before my birth - 66 years - and going strong from pre independence period. I live in a building built in 1976 also supplied by underground cables. We have not had any kind of problem even during several incidences of severe flooding during monsoon which paralysed the city for more than 4 days at a time and some parts for over a month. I am surprised that we did a better job than some so called developed western country.
Posted by pmshah@...
1st Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
My bet
Would be that because they buried them more for 'aesthetics' than anything else, that while they may have done it correctly by a purely technical standpoint, they did not do it 'right'.
Posted by jonrosen
2nd Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Hmmm...
You said they have been there since pre-independence days. I seem to recall that the British had control back then. I would call them a developed Western country. Perhaps it was their know-how that contributed (and continues to contribute) to your system that has served you so well all these years.
Posted by mudpuppy1
2nd Nov
0 Votes
+ -
underground wires are normal in Europe
Everything i the US has to be done on the cheap. To carry residential energy on wooden sticks to the houses, and have them break anytime you have a storm of ice, is terribly costly. Other than that is is ugly. Where we live, in suburbs of Raleigh, NC all power lines are underground or will be underground soon.
Posted by jackvandijk
2nd Nov
+4 Votes
+ -
Other considerations
For lines buried underground in earthquake-prone areas underground may be more vulnerable than overhead lines. The cost of burying lines can be relatively easily mitigated by scheduling installation at the same time other maintenance is performed, say on water, sewer, cable and phone. A national initiative to bury local lines beginning in areas with high vulnerability to wind or tree damage.
Posted by alexrounds@...
1st Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Not true.
Having overhead lines in earthquake prone area is extremely dangerous. The poles have a tendency to fall shorting the cables leading to sparking and possibly electrocution. This adds fire hazard to the already grave aftermath of collapsed buldings, etc.
Posted by pmshah@...
1st Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Underground brings its own problems too...
Lifespan is shorter for UG lines due to heat. Heat disperses quickly in the air, but less efficiently when buried. Also, as noted above, when there is a fault, its much more difficult to locate and excavate for repair than when lines are overhead. There certainly are locations where it may make more sense to bury, but its not a cure all for every location.
Posted by Diveguy7317
1st Nov
+4 Votes
+ -
Not quite.
You would have cables heating problems only if you have significant voltage drops in them. This would happen ONLY if the cables utilized are under capacity.and overloaded. For example if you have say 3 volt drop - this is quite high - from the main feed to your distribution board and are drawing say 30 amps - you are talking 90 watts dissipation over the length of the cable. Would hardly matter. In my case - 240 volt service - same load draws half as much current so the effects are even lesser. And I live in a "hot" country.
Posted by pmshah@...
1st Nov
0 Votes
+ -
You have heat regardless...
If you have a voltage drop, than yes you are pulling more amps, causing more resistance/heat. However, even at the correct voltage, there is a production of heat. Lines suspended in air can dissipate heat more readily than buried lines.
Posted by Diveguy7317
5th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
underground lines
baloney
Posted by jackvandijk
2nd Nov
+4 Votes
+ -
Underground Electrical Cables
Consolidated Edison stated today that the people with underground cables will have their power back much sooner (5-10 days) that people with overhead power lines, which are most costly to repair, in part because the breaks are more numerous.
Posted by bb_apptix
1st Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
That is good.
My daughter lives in North New Jersey. Her home is connected by underground cables. She had her power supply back up around 1:20 am on 1st, Nov. Quite a few close by homes with overhead supply are still without power.
Posted by pmshah@...
1st Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
AN ANSWER
We just finished manufacturing a box which will store solar energy by using PV panels, wind, generator or even house electricity. (soon to be announces Lightspeed solar.net). This solar energy storage box has enough energy to supply a small to medium sized home for 3 days before needing recharge.It can also be taken to places where there has been a disaster with loss of electricity. It has already been purchased by the US air force to light up runways to take off and land aircraft in a desert.The best part is one can get tax credits from both the federal and state governments. You can sell the excess electricity back to the grid bringing the ROI to a very palatable level. After witnessing the plight of the New York hospital's generator failure and moving almost 700 patients during the disaster, one wonders what would happen to those patients who are in the middle of a surgery or resuscitation.
Our hearts and prayers are with them.
Posted by usdoc1
1st Nov
0 Votes
+ -
the answer
where do we buy this?
Posted by jackvandijk
2nd Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Buried vs. above ground grids
I have experiences with both grid systems for power as well as for telephone. Since the grids went underground, failure ony occured if
- somebody destroys cables when digging them out in context of other work while being careless enough to disregard the yellow tape placed well above the dangerous zone at the moment of burying them,
- a switch station temporarily goes out of service, e.g. for maintenance,
- strong natural desasters such as heavy storms or earth quakes disrupt all under- and aboveground grids, partly or in total.
Regional outages related to natural disasters then occur once in a couple of years and for regular - pre-announced - works every so often in switch stations for the buried grid. Aboveground installations were and are to an increasing extent subject to unpredictable, very frequent accidents downing cables for uncalculated periods of time. The service is far more reliable and thus cheaper. The power and telephone grid operators know very well that TCO of an underground installation between their switches linking customers with overland lines is far less than for aboveground systems. Buried cables only fail if they are made in a bad quality and sit in tubes making eventual repairs very easy, unless we do not talk about the countryside grid.
Grids are a public utility - human civilization today need them like water and air. Grid and supply operation in the hands of one company makes powerful enough to be greedy in the interests of the owners to the detriment of the customers. It appears that the American public has over the years not made clear to these companies why TCO also includes the costs of outages not visible in the company balance sheet and that therefore making the grid go underground is much cheapier for both sides than the actual system.
Posted by info@...
1st Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
Overhead versus Underground
It seems that the initial cost is always the only factor considered.
Subsequent maintenance, security and a few other cost factors simply aren't even considered.
Why aren't water mains also installed overhead if it is so much more economical?
Posted by kwickset@...
1st Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
Water Mains not Overhead
There are a couple of reasons why water mains and sewer lines are not installed overhead. Wire is very light. Pipes full of water or something else are quite heavy.

Plus, the energy cost of pumping the water or sludge up to an overhead location is considerable. The pressure of the water or sludge going down can also rupture pipes.

The electricity on the other hand is not affected by gravity or height.

There are other reasons why underground is not chosen. Utilities classify power in several divisions, based on voltage. These are Transmission, sub-transmission, Distribution, and User. User voltages are typically 120-240 or 120-208 Volts in the US, and a higher 220/440 or 220/400 Volt for Europe. The second set of numbers is for three phase systems.

User systems are most commonly buried. There are places in the US where they are not buried. Yes, it is easier and therefore cheaper to run them overhead, but, since 1964, most communities have attempted to get the lines buried.

The User lines are fed by Distribution systems, typically operating at less than 15 KV. Often, these lines are actually at 7200 -12470 V or 7500-13200 V. These lines are often also buried. But, less often than the User lines.

The Distribution lines are fed from substations that are in turn fed by Sub Transmission lines In older areas, the Sub Transmission lines are 35 KV, in newer areas, they are 69 KV. Voltages greater than 35 KV are almost never buried. The insuation is just not up to the job.

Finally, from the generation stations to the areas where the power is used, there are Transmission Lines. These Transmission Lines are operated at higher voltages. Most are around 500 KV, with some as high as 750 KV or even 1 Million Volts, and some as low as 120 KV.

Generally, the higher the voltage, the smaller the wire that can be used to send a given amount of power. There is also a higher power loss to buried cables that are run underground than those run overhead.

Utilities run Transmission overhead because the lines lose about 25% less power than underground lines do.

Most will also run the sub transmission lines overhead also. This cannot always be done, so there are some of the lower voltage sub transmission lines that are run underground.

The distribution lines and the final drops to the end user are run underground because of regulations. The runs are much shorter, and the amount of power much lower, so the losses there are not as severe as the higher voltage lines.

Superconductive DC power lines would allow for underground transmission lines, but, that technology is still too expensive.

There are some high voltage underground lines, usually cables underwater, but those are special cases, and only run short distances.

Problems that affect underground lines can include lightning strikes, corrosion, excavation errors, water seepage into the cables, and overheating which causes insulation breakdown, and can off-gas corrosive gases at the end termination points.

Deciding when and where to bury cabling is a complex decision that is more often driven by permitting than by anything else.

But, no matter what, if your lines wind up being buried, you will pay for it. The Utilities don't have a magic cash tree. They only get the money from the customers month by month. Your bill pays for everything the Utility does.

Just something to think about. In this context, saying 'they will pay for it', You are They.
Posted by YetAnotherBob
2nd Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
overhead water pipes
makes a lot of sense to have overhead water pipes, just as much senses as overhead lectricity cables. European countries bury their electral wires
Posted by jackvandijk
2nd Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
Water Mains not Overhead
Thanks for the enlightnment.
Oh yes, no sense of humour either.
Posted by kwickset@...
2nd Nov
+6 Votes
+ -
Bury them
Standard practice in Europe. More reliable and cheaper in the long run. In Singapore, it's seven years jail for the idiot who digs them up. They don't have many problems...
Posted by jw@...
2nd Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
bury them
just realize that you talk about civilized countries that think ahead. Just as The Netherlands constructed the Delta-works because it was necessary. Realize that two seawall structures across the two entries to NYC cost #20 billions and the present cost of Sandy is estimated at $60 billions. The American finacial geniuses do not understand this type of math.
Posted by jackvandijk
2nd Nov
+4 Votes
+ -
I second the motion to bury them
I live in S. Florida, where FPL wants the residents to pay $1.5 million per mile to bury just the residential wiring. Since 1992, we have had 3 hurricanes, lost power for 2-3 weeks each time, and the above ground wires have NEVER been replaced in 30+ years, so they have more splices than a crochet shawl has knots, and every time the wind blows, we lose power, even when no hurricanes are anywhere in the hemisphere. Here in Miami, even after the CAT-5 H. Andrew, the areas that had underground wiring got power back in days, or never lost it. The only obstacle is FPL's insistence in charging 3x the actual cost to do the work.
Posted by Starman35
Updated - 2nd Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
FPL pricing policies
You can do something about this by lobbying the local authorities with a number of arguments. FPL needs operating licenses and concessions to use other people's land for its installations and will reconsider its attitude very quickly if faced with respective demands from there such as extended liability for producing electrical smog, service failures etc.. European power and telephone companies were using similar arguments and soon discovered how wrong they were when being faced with such issues. Some magic words are competition by bringing in other players selling services via the grid and separating grid operation from supplying services to consumers. You will be astonished how fast lines will be underground at affordable prices.
Posted by info@...
2nd Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
ELECTRICAL ENERGY SUPPLY
Forget the grid. One great disadvantage of the grid is the terrible "Eye-squared R" losses in the distribution wires. [At maximum efficiency, fully HALF the energy is dissipated in those wires. What a terrible waste.] And all the recent troubles amplify the need and sensibility to get off the grid.

One way that is hardly every thought of or mentioned is small, individual, neighborhood, or community generation systems.

I envision many small, packaged nuclear-fueled generation systems that supply standard 220/440 3-phase 60 Hertz sinusoidal electrical energy. These can be "closed" systems that require hardly any attention or maintenance.

In mass production, the cost should be low enough for individual homeowners each to afford his own unit. Or, more likely, entrepreneurs would form small "Energy Companies" that competitively would supply neighborhoods, towns, businesses, industrial plants, even entire geographical regions.

Careful thought would yield locations that would be far less prone to disasters both natural, accidental, and terrorist-inspired. Portable unit are even possible for quickly moving in to stricken regions.

Alternative energy sources are fine, but it all boils down to cost. [And keep government out of it completely. Otherwise the costs will soar beyond imagination.]
Posted by DavidMichaelMyers
Updated - 2nd Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Electrical energy supply
I second the idea to go more local with power generation, but do not agree that this should be done with nuclear-fueled systems. By all means, letting have everyone a private nuke installations means spreading dirty energy production beyond control with all its consequences. There are already many places in the countryside with entirely local schemes based on clean energy sources at competitive costs. However, all of these solutions require grids, buried or not.
Posted by info@...
2nd Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
local energy supply
How about using the Bloombox? Google is using it, so does Amazon.
Posted by jackvandijk
2nd Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
look at overseas
Have a look at any city in Europe. You will hardly find any overhead line there. It can be done (apparently).
Posted by dziedzicmj
2nd Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Europe
European government are logical in their decisions. In the US even the dogcatcher is dependent on politics.
Posted by jackvandijk
2nd Nov
-2 Votes
+ -
The US is not Europe.
Population density in Europe is more than twice what it is in the US. That makes all the difference when you have to base your cost on customers-per-mile.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
3rd Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Misleading and irrelevent
Let's look at an area with massive power outages caused by Sandy.
Let's look at Long Island.
As of 2010 the population density is 5,402 per square mile.

Much higher than the figures for Western European countries
The highest ones there are...

1,285 Netherlands
919 Belgium
663 United Kingdom
593 Germany
510 Italy
500 Switzerland
337 Denmark
319 Poland
303 France
262 Austria
168 Ireland
60 Sweden
46 Finland
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
6th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
bury them!!!!!!
I don,t buy you cost estimate for one thing.
For home generator the cost $3,000 to $20,000 . Average $7,000 just do it.
Posted by brown7228
2nd Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Control of Grid in Known Hazardous Situations
The article talks about power loss in Manhattan due to substation explosion. Why was the electricity left flowing at all given that any fool could see that there would be issues with a hurricane? Why was the entire area at risk not told 24 to 36 hours in advance that there would be NO electricity supply when the storm hit the coast? Just switch the grid off? This would have saved lives, although not the hospital that had not learned that it could not have its generators in the basement had it been paying attention to the tsunami over in Japan and the Fukushima power plant problems with their underground generator.
Posted by Caroline Webb
2nd Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Cost to Install v. Cost to Repair
It may be cheaper for the installation, but in high-risk areas like Florida, it could save money in the long run.

In addition to paying for new poles, lines, transformers and other equipment, how much does manpower and overtime cost the electric companies when they have a massive repair effort like this. Even though Gulf Power, for example, is sending trucks up to help in Sandy-affected areas, those crews are being paid by someone. They have expenses, like gas and hotel, to get up there and stay up there for the duration.

Think also of the cost to businesses when the power is out for an extended period of time. After Ivan in 2004, many of us didn't have power for three weeks. A business in that situation can't easily open (one of the grocery stores allowed a few people in at a time, assisted with flashlights, and accepted cash payments). Grocery stores lost all refrigerated/frozen foods. Restaurants had no way to prepare foods. Part-time workers at those businesses just didn't get paid.

Caroline Webb (above) makes a good point; the islands could have turned off power as the storm moved in, then turned it back on as they assessed their equipment. I haven't seen anything on the cause of the Breezy Point neighborhood fire, but if it was electrical, turning off the power may have saved those homes. Even if they flooded, some of the people's belongings could have been salvaged.

In the long run, underground wiring is well worth the additional up-front expense.
Posted by Taminar
3rd Nov
0 Votes
+ -
They just have to eveluate everthing using a risk approach
I cannot say burry everything under ground because of high cost. For important infrastructure, like power station or substation or the stock-exchange, they should be make weatherproof as far as possible. or for things that need long time to rebuild. I guess they can reinstall the lines much quicker than the sub-stations.
Posted by aktabo
4th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
For those of you saying let the power companies bear the cost...
Here in the US almost all the companies are set up as regulated utilities because historically it has been deemed that is more efficient. There are public utility commissions established to regulate them to keep them in line. Part of that regulation is to determine what is a fair profit and what are reasonable expenditures on the part of the utility. All of which is to say, that additonal cost the utilities incur burying and maintaining lines is going to be passed on to the consumer. There are locations where burying cable is the right choice either for dependability or aesthetics, but there's also locations where it makes more sense to leave them overhead.
Posted by Diveguy7317
5th Nov
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!