Pros and Cons of Underground Power Lines
Like many things in life and business, underground power lines have both pros and cons. It is definitely true that undergrounding can improve service reliability, but the cost is prohibitive. The burning question for any electric utility considering an undergrounding initiative is whether or not the benefit is greater than the cost.
The Ying and Yang of Underground Power Lines
Obviously, I am all for any initiative that has the potential to reduce outages and improve emergency preparedness for electric utilities. Let’s take a look at the advantages of underground power lines:
- Reduces outages because buried lines are not susceptible to damage from high winds or falling trees
- Looks better aesthetically
- Generates a positive economic impact by reducing outage-caused downtime for local businesses
- Can be coordinated with road repair activity to reduce excavation costs
And here are the disadvantages that come to mind:
- Installing underground lines can cost 7-10 times more than overhead lines, a cost that would likely be paid by customers in the form of higher rates
- Buried lines must be protected by conduit, otherwise they are susceptible to shortages from groundwater infiltration
- Buried lines can take longer to repair because the damaged area is usually more difficult to locate
- Undergrounding can be risky due to the presence of underground obstacles or other utility lines like gas, water or telecommunication lines.
- Underground power lines would not prevent outages caused by damage to high-voltage lines or towers
As you can see, there is no clear answer here. For a local community flavor to this argument, read this article about the strife over this topic in Stroudsburg, PA.
The ultimate question is this: how much are people willing to pay for increased reliability? And the only way to find out is to crunch the numbers, make the pitch, and gauge the public’s reaction. And get ready for a fight.
I appreciate you helping me learn about underground power lines. Undergrounding can improve service reliability, but the cost is prohibitive. It has the potential to reduce outages and enhance emergency preparedness for electric utilities. Another benefit would be generating a positive economic impact by reducing outage-caused downtime for local businesses. Can be coordinated with road repair activity to minimize excavation costs with the risk. Professionals must do these jobs.
European Urban & Sub-Urban areas have their power supplied by underground cables. Rural areas have their power lines above ground. Perhaps you could explain why it is feasible in the EU/UK & not in the US?
The U.S. — with its vast, wide-open spaces — has much lower population densities than the U.K. Even most American cities (counting their entire metropolitan areas) have far lower population densities than comparable-sized U.K. cities. Consequently, you’d have to run FAR more miles of power, underground, to serve the same number of people as in the U.K.
Let me correct myself:
I said “you’d have to run FAR more miles of power, underground, to serve the same NUMBER of people as in the U.K.”
I SHOULD have said “you’d have to run FAR more miles of power, underground, to serve the same PERCENTAGE of people as in the U.K.”
It IS conceivable that you could, at comparable cost, provide underground power for the same number of people in the U.S. as in the U.K., if you ONLY served those in the U.S. “Northeast Megalopolis” (string of major cities from Boston, through New York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, to Washington, D.C.) — which has a greater average population density (879/sq.mi. — 339/sq.km.) than the U.K. (701.1/sq.mi. — 270.7/sq.km.), and a comparable total population (50 million, vs. the U.K.’s 70 million). And, in fact, much of this region DOES bury its power lines.
However, much of the rest of the United States has a far lower population density (national average: 87/sq.mi — 33.6/sq.km.), making it costly and challenging to provide underground power to the rest of the U.S. population (national total: 330 million).