3 ms·
> if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little As someone from a country where electricity comes from the ground, not the sky: unless
by TheRealPomax 3y ago
> if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little
As someone from a country where electricity comes from the ground, not the sky: unless you live in a place that also doesn't have sewers or municipal water, no we do not.
Someone at some point made the (at the time perhaps even sensible, but more likely not) choice to run electricity along poles, fully exposed to the environment, instead of using utility pipes buried several feet deep. And you now live with the consequences of that decision.
- tstrimple 3y agoAs an example, during the Iowa derecho which tore up much of the state, our neighborhood was only out of power for about three hours thanks to the buried lines. Other parts of town didn't get power back for over two weeks. Buried power lines is going to be on my list of desired features in any new property I buy.
- myself248 3y agoAs someone from a country where our population density is probably a tiny fraction of yours, yes that decision is often sensible. The cost of underground installation, especially for things with voltage clearance requirements, is absolutely staggering.
- TheRealPomax 3y agoHow about we start with all the places that have huge asphalt and concrete slabs? Because that's what we're talking about. These are not middle-of-nowhere places, these are where people congregate and/or live in high enough density to justify the cost. Plant trees there, and move your utilities underground, geography and climate permitting. And then keep that electricity above ground for all the parts where people don't (or sparsely) live. They're not the areas that are part of this problem.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoObviously most neighbourhoods are not 'starting' on this because most of the voters rather not bear the cost and disruption of moving electrical lines underground.