This message was self-deleted by its author

[GarroHorus]

This message was self-deleted by its author (GarroHorus) on Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:24 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[hedgehog]

1. Thumbs up!

[emsimon33]

2. That's what I have been saying for years!

The problem is that these are no longer public utilities but for profit companies that only invest when a crisis occurs.

[PoliticAverse]

4. There are plenty of public utilities still. Burying power lines has advantages and disadvantages.

It can cost a great deal of money to bury lines that are currently overhead, and reliability can decrease in
areas frequently subject to flooding or overheating.

[IDemo]

6. Or backhoeing

Particularly when contractors don't call for a locate.

[PoliticAverse]

11. Yes. I keep seeing "Call before you dig - it's the law!!" ads. n/t

[indivisibleman]

3. I agree. But I always wondered

if there was a reason that they don't bury them. Besides cost.

[PoliticAverse]

8. It's primarily cost.

Although in area subject to frequent flooding buried lines can be less reliable than overhead.

How often do you lose electric power due to downed overhead lines ? How much more would you pay in
electric rates to eliminate that ?

[upi402]

10. Trenchless conduit or Directional Boring is good

and we have had it since the 70's

[upi402]

5. upsize transformers

increase grid headroom to distribute wind power during peak levels

much to do

switching, control, it's difficult because there are security issues

[RC]

7. Burying power lines are a lot more expensive than stringing them overhead.

Burying them in established neighborhoods can be a logistical nightmare. Then there is the finding and fixing a blowup underground.
And don't forget the idiot driving a fence post through a high tension line where it comes up to a transformer, without a call for locating first.
Or even where they are not buried deep enough because of landscaping after the fact. Oh, and don't forget flooding of transformers.
Burying power lines is not a cure all. It just changes the problems encountered and makes then more expensive to remedy.

[pintobean]

9. Who's paying?

Any idea of what that would cost?

[PoliticAverse]

12. I'm already paying a 'visual benefits assessment' each month because the local utility had to bury

a transmission line because some people didn't want to see large overhead transmission towers.

(It's municipally owned utility)

[girl gone mad]

14. The federal government can pay.

Considering that we have a sovereign currency with high unemployment and underutilized productive capacity, funding for this type of project is not even remotely problematic.

[msongs]

13. dems list of what they want to do is a secret. shhhhh nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. I live in a historical district

They wouldn't even give Verizon permission to add FiOS here because of regulations - and Verizon was paying for it.

No way will they ever dig up 200 year old streets to bury power lines.

[Igel]

16. Yup.

I imagine buried power lines in my friend Robert's neighborhood.

Water table, just about at ground level. Everything underground has to be waterproofed really well--all the transformers, for instance.

They can dig up the road or the sidewalks, or rip through all the landscaping, driveways, and sidewalks. Sure, they could bore under them--if you knew where the water, sewer, and irrigation lines were. Sometimes a couple of generations of them.

Either way, nasty. And expensive. And unnecessary.

One problem with making such problems national is parochial thinking--what works in one area doesn't work in another. It's one argument for decentralization, where local solutions to local problems can be implemented. If it's expensive in one area to find the optimal solution, so be it: It's expensive in that area.

[thelordofhell]

17. I also heard that The Rent Is Too Damn High