It seems kind of primitive to have power lines just hanging on poles, right?

Bit unsightly too

Is it just a cost issue and is it actually significant when considering the cost of power loss on society (work, hospital, food, etc)?

  • MrFinnbean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I mostly agree with you.

    Underground footprint is kind of flimsy reason tough, because if the grid and the infra around it is well designed, in the plans should allready be a plan how to expand if other utilities are needed later.

    Also enviroment where the lines are going to be build is important. Close to surface bedrock or soil with lots of big rocks. Overhead of course. Going trough or next to forest in area where winds may fell trees or snow packed on the branches may bend trees. Underground is the smart choise.

    Also while underground is slower and more expensive to fix, its rare that multiple lines break at the same time. Most areas has backups upon backups, so even if one line gets damaged it does not mean large amount of households are going to be without power. Overhangs on the other hand are more on the mercy of nature and big storms are more likely to break same line from multiple points or break multiple lines.

    Also broken overheads are more dangerous when broken and fixing them is more precarious.

    Both have good and bad things.

    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      in the plans should already be a plan

      “Should” is the worst word in the English language.