In ice storms, would it be a benefit if power lines were underground?

i think thats pretty obvious? lol

Naw...there wouldn't be any fun in it.

In ice storms, yes, but not over the long run. The big issue is that if an aboveground line has issues, you can locate the issue pretty easily and resolve it. If it's below ground, it's much tougher to find and fix. In general, the percentage of time out of commission is comparable in most places, but underground lines cost much, much more. The rule of thumb is that you put it underground only for aesthetics if the community wants to foot the bill, otherwise you go aboveground.

fan_from_texas;660348 wrote:In ice storms, yes, but not over the long run. The big issue is that if an aboveground line has issues, you can locate the issue pretty easily and resolve it. If it's below ground, it's much tougher to find and fix. In general, the percentage of time out of commission is comparable in most places, but underground lines cost much, much more. The rule of thumb is that you put it underground only for aesthetics if the community wants to foot the bill, otherwise you go aboveground.

That makes sense. Where I work they have the lines underground and we've been out of power for a week while they were digging around in the ditches outside.

And, if you're doing it for ice storms, it MIGHT be beneficial once or twice a year.

bigkahuna;660362 wrote:And, if you're doing it for ice storms, it MIGHT be beneficial once or twice a year.

I suppose if you were in one of the more Northern states it would make more sense to have their lines under ground, because of longer winter months.

said_aouita;660440 wrote:I suppose if you were in one of the more Northern states it would make more sense to have their lines under ground, because of longer winter months.

I was part of a proceeding for a transmission line company in a northern state, and the evidence in that case was that it was basically a wash for average time out of service, but was much more expensive for consumers. In some affluent areas, people are willing to pay extra for aesthetics, but that generally isn't the norm.

fan_from_texas;660907 wrote:I was part of a proceeding for a transmission line company in a northern state, and the evidence in that case was that it was basically a wash for average time out of service, but was much more expensive for consumers. In some affluent areas, people are willing to pay extra for aesthetics, but that generally isn't the norm.

underground lines are becoming the norm in central ohio. From low end apartments to high end housing developments

As an employee of the construction industry I can say that underground power lines are BY FAR the preference.

By the time you add fixing downed power lines from tree branches, struck utility poles and other occurrences, there "housekeeping/repairs" costs are pretty equal.

LJ;660908 wrote:underground lines are becoming the norm in central ohio. From low end apartments to high end housing developments

For the last mile, sure. But not for the bulk transmission system, certainly, and generally not for most of the distribution system, either.

fan_from_texas;660993 wrote:For the last mile, sure. But not for the bulk transmission system, certainly, and generally not for most of the distribution system, either.

depends on where you are, down the suburban main roads, no, but that whole suburb will be underground.