On 8/29/2014 9:44 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:37:57 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:42:36 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:21:57 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tonight I'm tossing together the last of my frozen meat - some
>>>>> ground pork, some last-legs mushrooms, end of the celery.....egg
>>>>> foo yong of a sort comin' up. Not much left in there - some frozen
>>>>> veggies and fruit. Gonna make up a lot of big ice blocks in
>>>>> case.......hurricane prep of a sort. If I lose power, at least I
>>>>> can keep the milk and dairy going for a day in the big Igloo.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't had a power outage in 14 years. All of our utilities are
>>>> underground, including the electricity all the way to the power
>>>> substation. It's possible bad weather could take out the high tension
>>>> transmission lines from the power plant, but those would be the first
>>>> things they would fix in an outage.
>>>>
>>>> All utilities should be underground wherever possible. Telephone
>>>> poles are visual pollution.
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>
>>> I've lived in areas with underground wiring and we still had outages.
>
> Of course everything is different on Planet Bove. But here on Earth
> it is a well-known fact that underground utilities are far, far less
> prone to outages (especially from storms), are much cheaper to
> install,

Nope:

http://www.entergy.com/2008_hurrican...ound-lines.pdf

Underground costs more to
install and maintain, resulting in
increased electric rates
• Several studies have shown
that installing lines underground
is expensive for customers and
taxpayers, costing 10 times more
than overhead distribution or
transmission lines.
• Underground lines are much
more difficult and expensive
to work on when problems
arise. They require earth-moving equipment and
specialized technicians.

> require much less maintenance,

Not always:

http://www.entergy.com/2008_hurrican...ound-lines.pdf

Underground lines are not necessarily more
reliable than overhead lines
• Typically, underground lines experience fewer
outages. But when outages involving underground
lines do happen, they typically last longer because
underground lines are more difficult than overhead
lines to troubleshoot and repair.

Underground lines are not necessarily more
reliable than overhead lines
• Typically, underground lines experience fewer
outages. But when outages involving underground
lines do happen, they typically last longer because
underground lines are more difficult than overhead
lines to troubleshoot and repair.

Underground lines are not necessarily more
reliable than overhead lines
• Typically, underground lines experience fewer
outages. But when outages involving underground
lines do happen, they typically last longer because
underground lines are more difficult than overhead
lines to troubleshoot and repair.

• A 2006 study by the Edison Electric Institute
found that burying overhead power lines costs
approximately $1 million per mile, 10 times what it
costs to install overhead lines.

> and are inherently much safer
> than overhead utilities (1,000 people get killed a year by overhead
> utilities and telephone poles).

And plenty get killed cutting into underground when trenching.



> Not to mention the visual pollution/aesthetics. Next time you're in a
> populated area, stop and take a REALLY good look at the mess of
> tangled wires criss-crossing the roads in every direction.

Then shed a crocodile tear for poor apartment-shackled sqwerty..

>> And they take a lot longer to repair.
>
> No, they don't.

Yes they do.

http://thevillagenews.com/story/35983/

"To locate a failure of the underground cable is a lot more
challenging," Chau said.

The mean repair time, however, is nine hours for overhead and 21 days
for underground.

Railroad crossing issues led to an average cost of $12.5 million per
mile and a range of $12.4 to $12.6 million for the 34 miles of 345 kV
underground lines, and the one underground mile of the 115 kV line which
ran through a residential neighborhood cost $6.5 million.

Underground costs included railroad and bridge crossing issues, utility
conflicts, soil and water handling, business disruption, and the night
work limitations.

Approximately 2,000 gas, water, electric, and other utility conflicts
complicated the construction.

> Far less time and money is spent on repairing
> underground utilities than overhead.

A lie.

http://lhspresspass.com/1245/feature...d-power-lines/


The frequency of outages of underground systems was 50% less than for
overhead systems, but the average duration of an underground outage was
58% longer due to the longer time to fix an underground system.
Reliability is another issue, Maryland utility found that customers
served by 40-year-old overhead lines had better reliability than those
served by 20-year-old underground lines.
The cost of an underground system is also greater than the cost of an
overhead system. The cost to place new transmission lines underground is
about 8 to 10 times the cost to build overhead lines. The cost to build
underground distribution lines is typically four to six times the cost
of overhead distribution lines.

> Only a moron like you would
> think otherwise.

Or utilities.

http://thevillagenews.com/story/35983/

The cost for the 3.12 miles of overhead lines averaged $3.8 million per
mile, which included replacing a 60 kV tower line. Although that work
was within an existing easement, 24 towers were replaced.

The major variables for the overhead work included terrain, access
roads, construction hours, removal of the 60 kV lines, and the
construction sequence.

The underground costs for the five segments averaged between $5.4
million and $6.8 million per mile. Variables included easement costs,
traffic, and environmental and restoration expenses.

> <snip the characteristic babbling>
>
> -sw

Gladly, now **** off out of here, you self-aggrandizing, evil dwarf.