3 ms·
> Surely they could have put a cable duct, trench or similar alongside it, or an under the adjacent cycle path. Maintenance would surely be cheaper too. Buryin
by michaelt 1y ago
> Surely they could have put a cable duct, trench or similar alongside it, or an under the adjacent cycle path. Maintenance would surely be cheaper too.
Burying a cable is 3x to 10x more expensive than running it overhead. [1]
Although faults are less common, they become much more expensive to fix - digging the cables up to fix is expensive, and it's even more expensive when you don't know quite where the fault is and you need a bunch of exploratory digging.
And unlike California, Austria doesn't have a load of wildfire problems.
[1] https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/111524_Undergrounding_Transmission_and_Distribution_Lines.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/111524_Un... https://www.theiet.org/media/ss5ndfti/electricity-transmission-technologies-flyer-2pp-v9_print-ready.pdf https://www.theiet.org/media/ss5ndfti/electricity-transmissi...
- lostlogin 1y agoGood links thanks. I’m sure the equation is different when the cabling is following a route that’s already having earthworks done, but that would seem unlikely to overcome a 4-5x price difference.
- xg15 1y agoNot an expert on this, but why do the cables have to be buried? Couldn't you put them into a trench with some kind of cover, that could be quickly be opened again for maintenance?
- Jolter 1y agoThat’s one way cables are often routed next to railroad tracks. A concrete trench with concrete covering slabs. I’m sure it’s more expensive than just digging, though it serves to make the cables serviceable.