3 ms·
Underground the power distribution like in France. It’s expensive but probably less costly in the long run.
by r00fus 7y ago
Underground the power distribution like in France.
It’s expensive but probably less costly in the long run.
- m463 7y agoFrance does everything right (but it also does everything wrong.)
- ars 7y agoWouldn't that cost something like $1 trillion to do for the entire state? Math: 155147 miles * $750/foot And an article https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2019/10/11/cost-to-bury-california-fire-prone-power-lines-why-not/3937653002/ https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2019/10/11/... confirming it's pretty much out of reach. $15,000 per household estimate (and 1,000 years!!).
- sjg007 7y agoWell then everyone has local solar with a powerwall for when PG&E shuts down. Maybe that's cheaper? Honestly I think PG&E could bury the lines cheaper than $750 a foot.
- SllX 7y agoMaybe, but I think CEQA will pretty much guarantee that it will end up being a bit more expensive than even that.
- dmlittle 7y agoYou wouldn't necessarily have to do the entire state but rather start doing this in high-risk places first.
- misterprime 7y agoGood point. Is it also true that high risk places (forest/rural) are probably cheaper and easier to install underground than low risk places (urban)?
- dredmorbius 7y agoA lot of long-distance, high-voltage transmission crosses what's effectively wilderness. You've got issues of unstable slopes, earthquake faults, flooding, and ground-current losses (a big problem with undergrounded power). And that's before you look at getting crews in place. Then there's the question of monitoring, servicing, and repair after undergrounding. It's definitely an option. But not a cheap or universally applicable one.
- el_benhameen 7y agoNot sure about that. The high risk places are also often in remote, rugged terrain. What you save by not having to disrupt other infrastructure you might end up spending just to get people and equipment to where they need to be. Interesting perspective here: https://www.wsj.com/graphics/california-wildfire-pge-drought/?mod=article_inline&mod=hp_lead_pos5 https://www.wsj.com/graphics/california-wildfire-pge-drought...
- heisenbit 7y agoMaybe ultra sparse settlements on a scale as today are unaffordable in the long run? It not just power but also the roads and communication links. Accounting for infrastructure maintenance is not done properly.
- Nasrudith 7y agoWell the obvious thing to do is to bury the ones in wind problem/fire risk areas
- rasz 7y ago> $750/foot 2-3 times more than per square foot price of building a luxury house in California, that number totally checks out!
- bluGill 7y agoUnderground power distribution doesn't last as long as above ground. So not only is it more expensive to install, you have to reinstall it more often, plus spend more money on repairs more often. Repairs take longer as well because you have to dig up the lines to do it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rrss 7y agoThe vast majority of power lines in France are overhead. RTE overhead lines: 100000 km RTE underground lines: 5400 km https://www.rte-france.com/fr/document/statistiques-reseaux-2016 https://www.rte-france.com/fr/document/statistiques-reseaux-... If you are intending to distinguish between distribution and transmission, the lines in question in California are transmission lines, not distribution lines.
- Roark66 7y agoNot needed really. We have last mile underground, but major distribution lines are over air. However all plants higher than few inches are cut down under the lines the width of the cut depending on how high the cables are. I can imagine it wouldn't work that well in the mountains. Here it is just a matter of regularily mowing the whole thing (few times per year).