Hydro Lines: Should They Be Buried?

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Should Hydro Lines Be Buried?

http://a.imageshack.us/img820/4307/wnhor27transformerr.png
Picture froom Google Street View from King Street North (http://a.imageshack.us/img844/589/wnhor27transformer.png) in Waterloo

A thread to discuss whether the Region's hydro utilities should explore opportunities to bury overhead hydro lines in select areas.


Region's 3 Hydro Utilities:
Waterloo North Hydro (http://www.wnhydro.com/index.shtml)
Energy + Cambridge and North Dumfries Hydro (http://www.camhydro.com/)
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro (http://www.kwhydro.ca/)


A simple necessity may negatively affect a well planned development, such as this at the BPR Lofts (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/319-BPR-Lofts-16m-4-fl):

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Waterloo/BPRLofts-July292010-2.jpg
Photo by UrbanWaterloo

[mpd618]

I'm rather interested in how hydro lines would get buried. How much does it cost, and who pays for it? If Momentum wanted it done, would the city help financially? Would they cover it in red tape?

[jay]

The city wouldn't pay for it unless it was something huge like the Barrel Yards (which I think they paid for, or at least helped)

The developer would have to foot the bill and most won't, especially for something like this. I bet it is a fortune considering you have to deal with the Hydro companies.

[BuildingScout]

What is this - 1946? Disappointing as it diminishes the streetscape.


New York went to buried lines in 1880, not only for aesthetic reasons but also because of the dangers during a blizzard.

[KevinL]

One thing that puzzles me is how Waterloo has wooden poles for anything hydro, no matter the setting.

Kitchener tends to use far more concrete poles, it makes non-buried lines a bit more classy.

[Waterlooer]

Yes, they should be... and not just for looks. Yes the cities would looks a lot nicer without all the wires, but also there would be less power outages due to the power underground.

[IEFBR14]

FWIW about 25 years ago some people in the subdivision where I lived in Toronto started a campaign to get our hydro cables buried. They approached Toronto Hydro to find out what it would take. The response was about $5,000 per resident -- assuming that everyone agreed to pay their share. Needless to say this went nowhere fast.

Keeping these sort of costs in mind, make a case for why existing hydro cables should be buried. I doubt that aesthetics alone will suffice.

[IEFBR14]

also there would be less power outages due to the power underground.
Can you cite some objective evidence to support your contention?

FWIW as a former resident of Toronto and current resident of Waterloo I'd estimate that Waterloo Hydro has at least an order of magnitude more power flickers than Toronto Hydro. I doubt that Toronto has an order of magnitude higher ratio of buried to overhead wires than Waterloo.

[Urbanomicon]

Yes, they should be... and not just for looks. Yes the cities would looks a lot nicer without all the wires, but also there would be less power outages due to the power underground.

There are advantages and disadvantages.

Wikipedia summerizes them nicely:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_lines


Some advantages of underground power cables:

They can assist the transmission of power across:

Densely populated urban areas
Areas where land is unavailable or planning consent is difficult
Rivers and other natural obstacles
Land with outstanding natural or environmental heritage
Areas of significant or prestigious infrastructural development
Land whose value must be maintained for future urban expansion and rural development


Less subject to damage from severe weather conditions (mainly lightning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning), wind and freezing)
Greatly reduced emission, into the surrounding area, of electromagnetic fields (EMF). All electric currents generate EMF, but the shielding provided by the earth surrounding underground cables restricts their range and power. See section below, health concerns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_lines#Health_concerns).
Underground cables need a narrower surrounding strip of about 1–10 meters to install, whereas an overhead line requires a surrounding strip of about 20–200 meters wide to be kept permanently clear for safety, maintenance and repair.
Underground cables pose no hazard to low flying aircraft or to wildlife, and are significantly safer as they pose no shock hazard (except to the unwary digger).
Much less subject to conductor theft, illegal connections, sabotage, and damage from armed conflict.
Some disadvantages of underground power cables:

Undergrounding is more expensive, since the cost of burying cables at transmission voltages is several times greater than overhead power lines, and the life-cycle cost of an underground power cable is two to four times the cost of an overhead power line. Above ground lines cost around $10 per foot and underground lines cost in the range of $20 to $40 per foot.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_lines#cite_note-2)
Whereas finding and repairing overhead wire breaks can be accomplished in hours, underground repairs can take days or weeks[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_lines#cite_note-3), and for this reason redundant lines are run.
Underground power cables, due to their proximity to earth, cannot be maintained live, whereas overhead power cables can be.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_lines#cite_note-4)
Operations are more difficult since the high reactive power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_power) of underground cables produces large charging currents and so makes voltage control more difficult.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_lines#cite_note-5)
The advantages can in some cases outweigh the disadvantages of the higher investment cost, and more expensive maintenance and management.