Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

jsakic99 t1_j1rtg2o wrote

A rough rule of thumb is that buried power lines cost about seven times more than overhead power lines. Customers probably don’t want to pay that premium for higher reliability.

16

iambluest t1_j1rxcpf wrote

I mean, I do...

−4

Hanginon t1_j1rxpl1 wrote

Until your $100 electric bill becomes $700, and you still have outages from damages, just different damages that can take even more time to repair. Everything about having them underground is more expensive.

5

TylerRiggs t1_j1rsa7a wrote

The cost of burying power lines historically was significantly higher than burying lines, especially when needing to be ran over long distances. If development is taking place in a much more compact area like subdivisions or cities, it makes a lot more sense to have the lines buried, but if you are running a line from a city to a town 10 miles away across a bunch of farmland, it doesn’t make much sense to go to the extra cost of burying

10

bananatheswitch t1_j1ruob7 wrote

A lot of cities run power lines underground. They are much more secure and difficult to break. However, they are more expensive to install. Additionally, in the rare event that they do break, they are much, much more difficult to repair.

9

blacksteel15 t1_j1rxit4 wrote

A lot of modern construction does use underground lines because they are far more reliable overall. But they're also a lot more expensive and a lot harder to service when they do break, especially if they run under pavement or other manufactured ground cover. While today underground lines are feasible, power lines predate widespread availability of powered construction equipment, so the amount of digging required would have been prohibitive. Now the biggest reason we still use overhead lines is simply institutional inertia - it's what's already there. Replacing the entire grid would be cheaper long-term but has an enormous upfront cost and doing it piecemeal would require transitions from overhead to underground that introduce a whole bunch of engineering and safety issues. There are a lot of people who think we should make the transition anyway for the exact reasons you brought up, and in many countries underground lines are now standard.

2

MrWedge18 t1_j1s37mp wrote

Here's a great video about an LA underground power line. It goes over many of the downsides of underground power lines.

TL;DR

  1. The lines need to be insulated from each other. Above ground, they can just be hung far away from each other. Under ground, you need to spend more money either building a large tunnel or adding insulation.
  2. Locating where underground lines have been damaged is a pain in the ass (more expensive and longer down time).
  3. Digging up the lines to do the repairs is also a pain in the ass (again more expensive and longer down time).
  4. Just doing maintenance is a pain in the ass. So underground lines won't have trees falling on them, but they'll just fail because it's not worth doing preventative repairs and maintenance.
1

explainlikeimfive-ModTeam t1_j1soevz wrote

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

  • ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting.

Please search before submitting.

This question has already been asked on ELI5 multiple times.

If you need help searching, please refer to the Wiki.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

1

Flair_Helper t1_j1sof79 wrote

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

  • ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting. Users will often either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7. Please see this wiki entry for more details (Rule 7).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

1

feralEhren t1_j1rzr04 wrote

For context the US covers more than twice the area of the European union and has about 3/4 the population. The majority of countries in Europe are smaller than individual states in the US.

−1

Calius1337 t1_j1rsmjj wrote

They are not. In civilized countries all power lines are run underground.

But the short answer is that it’s cheaper to run them above ground. Sure, it’s more dangerous and hazardous but saving money is more important than saving lives or having nice, neat and tidy cities.

−15

EvilGreebo t1_j1rv6gs wrote

Name a country with zero above ground power lines please.

7

InterPunct t1_j1rtyl2 wrote

In lots of places running them above ground is the difference between getting electric service or none at all, especially rural areas.

And if there's a mandate to run them below ground, service would be more reliable, a "tidier" look, etc., but also much more expensive for people in rural areas already struggling financially.

So yeah, in a perfect world energy would be clean, cheap, reliable, and each and every child would be above average.

3

mazamayomama t1_j1s2vvz wrote

geography is a huge factor too, Cities are often built on poor soil or solid rock or flood areas or otherwise not viable extra costly

1