7 ms·

Is there any part of California that runs power underground rather than overhead cables? I understand it’s a significant cost and effort (sometimes infeasible)

by mroche 8y ago

Is there any part of California that runs power underground rather than overhead cables? I understand it’s a significant cost and effort (sometimes infeasible) but at this point in time, just based on the past few years, I’m surprised not to have heard of any large scale pushes for underground power.

magnetic 8y ago
I live in San Jose, CA. The feed that comes to my house is underground. In my backyard, along the fence, are electric wires up in the air to feed my neighbors. So it's a mix...
Diederich 8y ago
Depends on the neighborhood. I've lived in both. Here's one location where all of the cables are underground: https://goo.gl/maps/BhEVwjPSitF2 https://goo.gl/maps/BhEVwjPSitF2
iaabtpbtpnn 8y ago
Nah, we just string the cables haphazardly wherever, through trees is just fine, because of course it's always sunny and nice in California. It seriously looks like third world infrastructure to someone from another part of the country, where weather events happen often enough that the utility has to give a shit.
- dahdum 8y ago
  PG&E can’t afford to do that without raising capital. CPUC won’t approve rate hikes to finance that capital. Legislators pass no new laws or regulations. Then when it goes awry CPUC and legislators stand far back and decry PG&E for negligence.
  - bleriot 8y ago
    They could afford to pay out a regular dividend, illegally skipped safety measures on pipelines, and “an independent audit from the State of California issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive compensation and bonuses”. Ratepayers and taxpayers should never have to pay for deliberate executive negligence. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pge-safety-investigation-20181214-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pge-safety-investigat...
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    PG&E had more than enough money to bury its power lines, and used that money to fund dividends and executive bonuses instead.
  - objektif 8y ago
    Hold on they were not allowed to do secondary offerings? Or debt raise? Have you seen the stock price of PCG? Share price trend does not resemble a company with financial troubles.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  >It seriously looks like third world infrastructure to someone from another part of the country... and: >we just string the cables haphazardly wherever, through trees is just fine... ??? That's actually the same infrastructure as the rest of the nation. Or at least, that's what it's like every place in the US that I've lived. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Houston, etc etc etc.
- beatgammit 8y ago
  Have you been to a third world country? Most power cables near people are buried, where it makes sense. Burying cables if expensive and the risk of wild fire is pretty low if brush and forests are maintained. However, we keep putting out fires instead of letting things burn down normally. Wild fires may be sparked by an electrician malfunction, but that's merely a symptom of the larger problem of poor natural resource management. In a third world country, wires are draped across houses in a way that is very likely to cause problems. The situation in every part of the US that I've visited is better than every third world country I've been to.
ucaetano 8y ago
While it might work with distribution networks, it would be much harder for transmission networks. It would be essentially building a pipeline to transport electricity.
loser777 8y ago
Large swaths of Orange County are like this (think Irvine).
koboll 8y ago
Plenty of urban and suburban areas do this, yes. But that's not where the fires start. They come from areas that are a) dense with sap-oozing pine trees that hunger for a fire to spread their seeds, and b) so remote that maintenance checks can't logistically occur often enough to effectively prevent dangerous situations. As you might imagine, the expense of laying underground power lines to areas like these is way out of proportion to the benefit to residents. A colossal swath of northern and eastern California is forest, and replacing power lines across all of it would be a herculean infrastructure project that PG&E definitely cannot afford.
Rebelgecko 8y ago
It's pretty common in better off areas for the cables going directly to homes which are (relatively!) low voltage. My understanding is that underground cables are most beneficial in areas that experience high winds and ice buildup. They may not be as well suited to CA since underground cables are just as (if not more) susceptible to damage from earthquakes and flooding. Being underground also leads to much higher capacitance in the cable, which can reduce the amount of current and shortens the cable's maximum length.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Is there any part of California that runs power underground rather than overhead cables? Yes, but mostly urban/suburban areas; AFAIK, the expense would be prohibitive for long-range transmission.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Read on this a while back...also repairing is a pain.
Spooky23 8y ago
Underground cables aren't without problems either. Old stuff breaks without capital investments. It still ages, and the high cost of inspection and repair means you're going to have problems. NYC has manhole fires all of the time.
spc476 8y ago
Yes. JWZ posted a story about a repair in one such cable: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2002/11/engineering-pornography/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2002/11/engineering-pornography/ And in this case, when the cable broke, it was hideously expensive to fix (downtime was costing $13,000/hour and this was back in 2002). EDIT: don't click directly on the link or you'll be horrified by what you see. Instead, copy the link. JWZ doesn't think highly of HN.
pixl97 8y ago
Underground cables are expensive in the flatlands. Underground cables are insanely expensive in hill country. Also they cause significant environmental damage to install, which in CA is a significant consideration. Also sparking can occur at ground air interfaces for different reasons, so it isn't a 100% solution.

by mroche 8y ago

magnetic 8y ago

I live in San Jose, CA. The feed that comes to my house is underground. In my backyard, along the fence, are electric wires up in the air to feed my neighbors. So it's a mix...

Diederich 8y ago

Depends on the neighborhood. I've lived in both. Here's one location where all of the cables are underground: https://goo.gl/maps/BhEVwjPSitF2 https://goo.gl/maps/BhEVwjPSitF2

iaabtpbtpnn 8y ago

Nah, we just string the cables haphazardly wherever, through trees is just fine, because of course it's always sunny and nice in California. It seriously looks like third world infrastructure to someone from another part of the country, where weather events happen often enough that the utility has to give a shit.

dahdum 8y ago
PG&E can’t afford to do that without raising capital. CPUC won’t approve rate hikes to finance that capital. Legislators pass no new laws or regulations. Then when it goes awry CPUC and legislators stand far back and decry PG&E for negligence.
- bleriot 8y ago
  They could afford to pay out a regular dividend, illegally skipped safety measures on pipelines, and “an independent audit from the State of California issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive compensation and bonuses”. Ratepayers and taxpayers should never have to pay for deliberate executive negligence. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pge-safety-investigation-20181214-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pge-safety-investigat...
- gamblor956 8y ago
  PG&E had more than enough money to bury its power lines, and used that money to fund dividends and executive bonuses instead.
- objektif 8y ago
  Hold on they were not allowed to do secondary offerings? Or debt raise? Have you seen the stock price of PCG? Share price trend does not resemble a company with financial troubles.
bilbo0s 8y ago
>It seriously looks like third world infrastructure to someone from another part of the country... and: >we just string the cables haphazardly wherever, through trees is just fine... ??? That's actually the same infrastructure as the rest of the nation. Or at least, that's what it's like every place in the US that I've lived. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Houston, etc etc etc.
beatgammit 8y ago
Have you been to a third world country? Most power cables near people are buried, where it makes sense. Burying cables if expensive and the risk of wild fire is pretty low if brush and forests are maintained. However, we keep putting out fires instead of letting things burn down normally. Wild fires may be sparked by an electrician malfunction, but that's merely a symptom of the larger problem of poor natural resource management. In a third world country, wires are draped across houses in a way that is very likely to cause problems. The situation in every part of the US that I've visited is better than every third world country I've been to.

ucaetano 8y ago

While it might work with distribution networks, it would be much harder for transmission networks. It would be essentially building a pipeline to transport electricity.

loser777 8y ago

Large swaths of Orange County are like this (think Irvine).

koboll 8y ago

Plenty of urban and suburban areas do this, yes. But that's not where the fires start. They come from areas that are a) dense with sap-oozing pine trees that hunger for a fire to spread their seeds, and b) so remote that maintenance checks can't logistically occur often enough to effectively prevent dangerous situations. As you might imagine, the expense of laying underground power lines to areas like these is way out of proportion to the benefit to residents. A colossal swath of northern and eastern California is forest, and replacing power lines across all of it would be a herculean infrastructure project that PG&E definitely cannot afford.

Rebelgecko 8y ago

It's pretty common in better off areas for the cables going directly to homes which are (relatively!) low voltage. My understanding is that underground cables are most beneficial in areas that experience high winds and ice buildup. They may not be as well suited to CA since underground cables are just as (if not more) susceptible to damage from earthquakes and flooding. Being underground also leads to much higher capacitance in the cable, which can reduce the amount of current and shortens the cable's maximum length.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Is there any part of California that runs power underground rather than overhead cables? Yes, but mostly urban/suburban areas; AFAIK, the expense would be prohibitive for long-range transmission.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
Read on this a while back...also repairing is a pain.

Spooky23 8y ago

Underground cables aren't without problems either. Old stuff breaks without capital investments. It still ages, and the high cost of inspection and repair means you're going to have problems. NYC has manhole fires all of the time.

spc476 8y ago

Yes. JWZ posted a story about a repair in one such cable: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2002/11/engineering-pornography/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2002/11/engineering-pornography/ And in this case, when the cable broke, it was hideously expensive to fix (downtime was costing $13,000/hour and this was back in 2002). EDIT: don't click directly on the link or you'll be horrified by what you see. Instead, copy the link. JWZ doesn't think highly of HN.

pixl97 8y ago

Underground cables are expensive in the flatlands. Underground cables are insanely expensive in hill country. Also they cause significant environmental damage to install, which in CA is a significant consideration. Also sparking can occur at ground air interfaces for different reasons, so it isn't a 100% solution.