Overhead Power Lines Dangerous To Life and Property

[petersonra]

So , on the contrary.....

Lets mandate to the individual what the government does with taxpayer money. Lets require the neighborhoods to have 16 feeders that are impervious to rain, ICE, Lightning, Trees, Accidents, squirrels, earthquakes and more.... Lets boast how amazing the reliability is, nobody will ever loose power. That's our goal!

What will that utility hook up fee be for a new residence? People want to build a new house, the electric hook up fee will be $75K but hey, it amazingly reliable. Your welcome. Another silly meme done by a HS student who cant evaluate the whole picture.

I think you could probably buy every power user a NG powered generator for what the sketch shows would cost.

The other problem is that these mesh circuits are notoriously hard to model so you may not get all that much of an improvement when you are done. It seems "obvious" that it is "better" but since the interactions of all these wires going every which way can't be predicted with any certainty, who knows whether it ends up better or just more costly.

 

[gadfly56]

Undergrounding can solve this and more.

Consider yourself lucky, in CT for some the outages lasted a few days.

Had Elsa come a few miles closer the story would have been different.

Well, sure. Would I be a little happier to see all the lines in and around my neighborhood underground? Yes, yes I would. If someone told me it would cost me $1,000 I would be somewhat hesitant. If they said it would be $10,000 I'd say "no, thank you." For $10,000 I'd rather get a generator installed.

 

[mbrooke]

So , on the contrary.....

Lets mandate to the individual what the government does with taxpayer money. Lets require the neighborhoods to have 16 feeders that are impervious to rain, ICE, Lightning, Trees, Accidents, squirrels, earthquakes and more.... Lets boast how amazing the reliability is, nobody will ever loose power. That's our goal!

What will that utility hook up fee be for a new residence? People want to build a new house, the electric hook up fee will be $75K but hey, it amazingly reliable. Your welcome. Another silly meme done by a HS student who cant evaluate the whole picture.

Well, what is the hook up fee in Bronx? Brooklyn and Queens? The EU?

No one can deny that graphic is correct.

 

[mbrooke]

Sure it can solve the lightning problem. I am not against solving problems if an obvious solution exists, but it doesn't here. This is a massive scale infrastructure. Its elementary to look at a problem in singularity and apply it to a system the size of the grid. Simply looking at it an saying "burry it" is a simplistic knee jerk solution. That's not to say it's not a solution but why have this conversation until other options have been debated. You suggested doing this change over 50, 60 or 100 year period. What if there is a nano-tech break through in 50 years with battery tech and it makes the grid less critical? Think about the assumption there. Imagine if the telephone company said the same in 1900. That's static thinking and problems of this scale require critical dynamic thinking. After all the Flint Michigan water utilities are all underground yet have many many issues as do many utilities in city areas. So why don't the cities just re-do those systems? Its not so easy underground. So underground is not a permanent solution without issues.

So without debating a less centralized distributions system, future high efficiency alternatives sources that don't exist yet or other solutions lets focus on what the problem is you would like to fix. Its reliability, but on what scale? Rural? Natural disaster events, all of the above? What does a successful system look like if the current system is below standard? Pointing to localized outages is hardly reflective on the whole system.

Why not simply address the simple issues that create the events you see as problems. So if power lines are blown over increase that standards? Concrete poles seem like a fantastic idea in my opinion. As others have said, putting developments or neighborhoods underground seems reasonable and does seem to be the norm in urban developments today. Trees falling on lines, cut the trees back, raise the lines, or both?

I have zero experience with utilities or the standards imposed on them. Perhaps they have been left to make too many decisions on their own putting the cost/reliability factor on the ragged edge. Perhaps adjusting that a bit so the cost of the service increase a little but the reliability increases by a multiple is worth it. Putting the whole system underground does not make sense. Electricity is our most reliable utility. Its pretty transparent to most of society. That's testimony to its reliability. It can be improved, but I don't feel it needs a complete overhaul. If it does then all options need to be tabled.

That of they simply don't/can't spend the money to begin with. Same issue over head or underground. Yo have utilities like PSE&G overhauling substations to GIS, where as other refuse to touch their 80 year old investment.

500,000 customers is not a localized outage.

Concrete poles help with wind, not trees that way more than a semi truck.

Gas and water tend to be more reliable. Perhaps because those two are underground.

 

[mbrooke]

I think you could probably buy every power user a NG powered generator for what the sketch shows would cost.

The other problem is that these mesh circuits are notoriously hard to model so you may not get all that much of an improvement when you are done. It seems "obvious" that it is "better" but since the interactions of all these wires going every which way can't be predicted with any certainty, who knows whether it ends up better or just more costly.

Can the natural gas network handle it? What if there was a lost gas pipeline which would results in blackouts to start with...


Predicated with enough certainty that millions of people in NYC typically don't have any issue. R and Z can be modeled, its very predictable.

 

[Hv&Lv]

Seems like every time the lights go out people complain and there’s always some that say “bury all the lines, solve all the problems!”
Once this happens some government official is up for election and decides to waste more taxpayer money on a “feasibility study” there are many out there. Here’s one for 2014 in Mass.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/od/undergrounding-distribution-lines.pdf

Plain and simple fact is it costs way more than customers want to pay. Every one wants cheap energy, but no one wants their trees cut. No one wants their property dug up. When highway projects come up to move a road and the utilities are in the road easement, what happens then? We are constantly moving lines for the state to make road improvements for drainage. Road drainage can’t happen uphill, the lines have to be put at a specific elevation. Who pays when the state decides to put in a new bigger culvert and the power lines are there?
They want the lines out of the way but no one wants to experience the outage with maintenance and repairs.
It’s easy to draw a bunch of lines on a paper and post it with your moniker on it and say “I fixed it! This is the best way!”
When you have never worked in the industry nor came across the design issues facing the task of putting all power lines underground, the solution is exceptionally simple.

 

[petersonra]

Can the natural gas network handle it? What if there was a lost gas pipeline which would results in blackouts to start with...

Who knows. Probably not but since you are able to put all the electric lines UG just by saying it should be so, I can give everyone a NG generator and enough gas to run it in case of a blackout. Few people choose this option on their own because of the cost. They would rather just have the usually minor inconvenience of the loss of electricity for short periods of time.

The real problems come when there are widespread natural disasters and there is not much you can do when that happens. You are still going to have a lot of issues.

 

[mbrooke]

I fail to s

Seems like every time the lights go out people complain and there’s always some that say “bury all the lines, solve all the problems!”
Once this happens some government official is up for election and decides to waste more taxpayer money on a “feasibility study” there are many out there. Here’s one for 2014 in Mass.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/od/undergrounding-distribution-lines.pdf

Plain and simple fact is it costs way more than customers want to pay. Every one wants cheap energy, but no one wants their trees cut. No one wants their property dug up. When highway projects come up to move a road and the utilities are in the road easement, what happens then? We are constantly moving lines for the state to make road improvements for drainage. Road drainage can’t happen uphill, the lines have to be put at a specific elevation. Who pays when the state decides to put in a new bigger culvert and the power lines are there?
They want the lines out of the way but no one wants to experience the outage with maintenance and repairs.
It’s easy to draw a bunch of lines on a paper and post it with your moniker on it and say “I fixed it! This is the best way!”
When you have never worked in the industry nor came across the design issues facing the task of putting all power lines underground, the solution is exceptionally simple.

I showed you the math you asked for, you still have not replied back.

 

[petersonra]

I fail to s


I showed you the math you asked for, you still have not replied back.

Is there any need to reply back to a proposal that would add $500-1000/month to the average electric bill for the next 40 years to put everything UG? Even if you went with the limited option suggested of only putting the primary distribution UG it would still add $50-100/month. And given this came from a government agency in 2014, it is certain that the cost is dramatically understated.

 

[gadfly56]

Seems like every time the lights go out people complain and there’s always some that say “bury all the lines, solve all the problems!”
Once this happens some government official is up for election and decides to waste more taxpayer money on a “feasibility study” there are many out there. Here’s one for 2014 in Mass.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/od/undergrounding-distribution-lines.pdf

Plain and simple fact is it costs way more than customers want to pay. Every one wants cheap energy, but no one wants their trees cut. No one wants their property dug up. When highway projects come up to move a road and the utilities are in the road easement, what happens then? We are constantly moving lines for the state to make road improvements for drainage. Road drainage can’t happen uphill, the lines have to be put at a specific elevation. Who pays when the state decides to put in a new bigger culvert and the power lines are there?
They want the lines out of the way but no one wants to experience the outage with maintenance and repairs.
It’s easy to draw a bunch of lines on a paper and post it with your moniker on it and say “I fixed it! This is the best way!”
When you have never worked in the industry nor came across the design issues facing the task of putting all power lines underground, the solution is exceptionally simple.

I read the report, and one thing we haven't even touched on here is all the utilities that are on the poles that are other than electric; cable, phone, street lights, etc.

 

[mbrooke]

Is there any need to reply back to a proposal that would add $500-1000/month to the average electric bill for the next 40 years to put everything UG? Even if you went with the limited option suggested of only putting the primary distribution UG it would still add $50-100/month. And given this came from a government agency in 2014, it is certain that the cost is dramatically understated.

View attachment 2557147

So as a rebuttal in hopes of addressing the root barrier I yet again pitch this question: How is it that lesser economically prosperious countires have maanged to underground 95% of their distro system?

 

[petersonra]

So as a rebuttal in hopes of addressing the root barrier I yet again pitch this question: How is it that lesser economically prosperious countires have maanged to underground 95% of their distro system?

Start with nothing and a much higher population density.

 

[petersonra]

I read the report, and one thing we haven't even touched on here is all the utilities that are on the poles that are other than electric; cable, phone, street lights, etc.

The cable company here is moving their lines off the poles and UG. Directional boring mostly. But it is all replacement lines so they are replacing stuff that is mostly at the end of its service life.

 

[mbrooke]

Start with nothing and a much higher population density.

If they have nothing to start with, I'd think overhead would be cheaper. UK was still paying off war debt into the 2000s.

 

[Hv&Lv]

So as a rebuttal in hopes of addressing the root barrier I yet again pitch this question: How is it that lesser economically prosperious countires have maanged to underground 95% of their distro system?

Where do you get 95%

 

[kwired]

Most places the utility has little say in how much money they are allowed to spend on infrastructure. It is all determined by politicians who want it to be as cheap as possible so the voters don't vote them out of office.

??

Public owned utilities spend necessary money for improvements and preparation for expected future needs.

Privately owned utilities tend to only do what is absolutely necessary much more often so the investors can keep collecting their disbursements. If they don't plan ahead they end up having to cover large expenses somewhat on demand rather than planning for it and starting projects well in advance of the need date.

 

[kwired]

500,000 customers is not a localized outage.

It maybe is in Tokyo.

 

[mikeames]

So as a rebuttal in hopes of addressing the root barrier I yet again pitch this question: How is it that lesser economically prosperious countires have maanged to underground 95% of their distro system?

Look at the land mass. Why do we drive more SUVS and Trucks? We have more land mass. I don't know what countries your referring to but the US is the 3rd or 4th largest by land mass. So putting things underground in our country vs Germany or France etc.... We have states larger than those countries. That matters. Its the same reason why all houses don't have fiber, nat gas, city water, and sewer. When things get spread out its less cost effective. I would bet if you took all of our underground infrastructure and totaled up the area it covers, it would be greater than what ever country you are referring to. Why do cities all have subways but urban areas don't. Same concept of cost per consumers served. Again we are not against underground utility where it makes sense. Many new developments are installed underground but converting the whole system is wildly different and simply an academic wish.

What does economic prosperity have to do with it? Perhaps the freedom to choose through a free market is also a factor. I am not getting political I am just saying what others have said. If you give people a choice and tell them it will cost them a few bucks more per month they would be for it. If you tell them it will cost a hundred a month more but it will be more reliable and there will be less outages people say screw it Ill take the occasional inconvenience. Politicians who try to buck this learn the the public views the electrical reliability as sufficient.

Those who live in areas where its more than an inconvenience also make choices. They either move or buy a generator. We all have choices. I think you answered your own question there. That addresses that ridiculous meme above with the 16 feeders and the mansion. The person in the mansion is smarter. They realize they can accomplish the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Buy a generator for 20k or pay to install 16 feeders underground.

 

[mbrooke]

Look at the land mass. Why do we drive more SUVS and Trucks? We have more land mass. I don't know what countries your referring to but the US is the 3rd or 4th largest by land mass. So putting things underground in our country vs Germany or France etc.... We have states larger than those countries. That matters. Its the same reason why all houses don't have fiber, nat gas, city water, and sewer. When things get spread out its less cost effective. I would bet if you took all of our underground infrastructure and totaled up the area it covers, it would be greater than what ever country you are referring to. Why do cities all have subways but urban areas don't. Same concept of cost per consumers served. Again we are not against underground utility where it makes sense. Many new developments are installed underground but converting the whole system is wildly different and simply an academic wish.

What does economic prosperity have to do with it? Perhaps the freedom to choose through a free market is also a factor. I am not getting political I am just saying what others have said. If you give people a choice and tell them it will cost them a few bucks more per month they would be for it. If you tell them it will cost a hundred a month more but it will be more reliable and there will be less outages people say screw it Ill take the occasional inconvenience. Politicians who try to buck this learn the the public views the electrical reliability as sufficient.

Those who live in areas where its more than an inconvenience also make choices. They either move or buy a generator. We all have choices. I think you answered your own question there. That addresses that ridiculous meme above with the 16 feeders and the mansion. The person in the mansion is smarter. They realize they can accomplish the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Buy a generator for 20k or pay to install 16 feeders underground.

Economic prosperity has everything to do with it? The US is the richest country on earth, yet has one of the cheapest distro systems on earth. Many antiquated.

On the other hand countries with less wealth, some with no wealth, have managed to bury their lines.

No one can deny this, clearly I think they have discovered some method that in the least lowers capitol cost to the point such countries can afford it in the first place.

Using the NEC as an example there is a reason why most countries don't want to use it. IF they were forced to use it, they wouldn't be able to afford electrification as it would become to costly. Most can't afford a system that is 2-6 times larger than it needs to be. Yet everyone is technically paying for it without knowing it in the United States.

Regarding land size, that is correct, but at an east coast level New Jersey is actually way more dense per acre of land than most EU cities. Most other places are just as dense if not more per MW per acre.


30 million people moving is not practical. Installing a generator at each property is not practical, though personally fun to think about. Though in truth it looks like people are paying the for the lack of undergrounding one way or another cosnidering how many more places have a generator these days. Fuel, maintenance, installation and the set itself at your local stores, amazon warehouse, car dealer, ect are being payed for by the consumer.


Its not to ridiculous when those 16 feeder cables also serve 45,000 other customers. Not just the power bill from the mansion, but the bills from the local Tesla plant, municipal complex, mall, amusement park, Amazon delivery system, hospitial, local college, data center, farms, ect. Everyone has access to reliable power with no downtime.

 

[mbrooke]

It maybe is in Tokyo.

Perhaps. But you do know I'm not kidding when I say afternoon storms result in 500,000 customers outages in the North East?