Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vwturbo t1_jc6oaol wrote

Reply to comment by futureygoodness in What is the deal with the NH grid? by decayo

As someone who works in the industry, it gets old hearing that we should just bury the lines. This works in dense areas, but for rural areas (like the vast majority of NH) it is extremely cost prohibitive. Installing buried conduit, manholes, transformer foundations, etc. is often upwards of $200-$300 per FOOT of buried conduit. Even more expensive if it has to be concrete-encased, or God forbid there is ledge (rock) in the way that needs to be hammered out (btw this is New Hampshire, the Granite State, there is ledge absolutely EVERYWHERE). And that doesn't even include the cost of installing (pulling, splicing) the actual cables and transformers themselves.

132

rsex77 t1_jc74f6o wrote

Agreed. The only time underground makes sense is in densely populated areas where utilities and ground composition allows it.

24

Hot-Specialist-6824 t1_jc7ls94 wrote

New developments can and certainly have put their utilities underground since they're already putting in roads and possibly drainage/sewers. But these eventually lead back out to power lines above ground. That's the case where I live, and I know if we lose power there's probably quite a few who have also lost it.

3

schillerstone t1_jcawt8a wrote

What's the cost per foot to trim trees, maintain poles, and respond to downed wires? You need to be able to answer this question in order to assert burying lines is too expensive.

2

vwturbo t1_jcbjvzv wrote

The savings on maintenance and repairs over the life of the facilities are, generally, much less than the difference in initial construction costs.

There are also maintenance costs associated with buried infrastructure that you are not acknowledging. Drastic changes in temperature, tree roots, flooding, damage from animals, damage from vehicles, etc, all cause damaged conduit and/or damaged cable, which is usually costly and disruptive to repair. Above-ground facilities are obviously way more exposed and therefore damaged more often, but the repairs are generally relatively inexpensive and simple compared to repairs of UG facilities.

1

Jrzgrl1119 t1_jc826ih wrote

I lived in Alaska. The power lines were buried. I did not live in a heavily populated area. There is so much ledge in Alaska! I never lost power the 4 years I lived there and we got a lot of snow.

1

vwturbo t1_jcbljau wrote

I'm intrigued by this. Not sure why you're being downvoted.

This is just speculation, but from what limited knowledge I have about Alaska, even though it is not densely populated overall people tend to live in villages somewhat close to each other, correct? Even if a town only has a couple hundred people, if they all live relatively nearby to one another in a village, buried lines would make sense.

Another possible reason, response to downed lines is probably much more expensive and time consuming in such a large and remote area, so the larger upfront cost to bury lines may pay off quicker than in a smaller state like NH.

Are most long-distance transmission lines buried up there? Or just the distribution infrastructure that goes from building to building?

1

Cantide756 t1_jc8e93r wrote

Don't forget servicing and flooding of those concrete tubes

1

[deleted] t1_jc7mgjy wrote

[deleted]

−2

fffangold t1_jc7t9nn wrote

Sure. Since you aren't using any electricity during the outage, you won't be charged since you aren't using the electricity that isn't there.

8

vwturbo t1_jc7nptw wrote

I’m not saying change is bad lol. It’s obvious our existing system needs help. I’m saying that better tree trimming and maintenance, and more resilient above-ground infrastructure is almost always going to be a better and more cost effective solution for NH than burying cables will be on a large scale.

4