Buried Power Lines

[Cookie]

Why are MV and LV powerlines in the UK buried underground? Same for Europe? Does it cost more to bury them?

 

[DPG]

Why are MV and LV powerlines in the UK buried underground? Same for Europe? Does it cost more to bury them?

Saves having huge ugly metal pylons ruining the landscape. No risk of bird strikes. No hazard to fishermen, kiteflyers etc.

 

[telectrix]

Saves having huge ugly metal pylons ruining the landscape. No risk of bird strikes. No hazard to fishermen, kiteflyers etc.

but waht about mole strikes? mole lives matter, you know.

 

[Cookie]

Saves having huge ugly metal pylons ruining the landscape. No risk of bird strikes. No hazard to fishermen, kiteflyers etc.

Any idea of the cost? Are your electric bills higher?

 

[telectrix]

Any idea of the cost? Are your electric bills higher?

does not affect bills. one advantage is that buried cables are generally low maintenance, as they are less. affected by external influences.

 

[Cookie]

does not affect bills. one advantage is that buried cables are generally low maintenance, as they are less. affected by external influences.

In the US people keep saying its more expensive hence the excuse to keep building new lines overhead.

 

[DPG]

Any idea of the cost? Are your electric bills higher?

Not sure of the relative cost of installing overhead vs buried cables. A google search should reveal it though.

 

[Micktw68]

Why are MV and LV powerlines in the UK buried underground? Same for Europe? Does it cost more to bury them?

Ease of maintenance, less expensive than running overland, less likely to raise Concerns from environmentalists etc.etc

 

[pc1966]

Certainly there is a striking difference between the typical US or Japanese city streets with numerous pylons and overhead LV cables compared to the UK where they are rare, even overhead telephone lines are in decline now.

I guess one aspect is aesthetics - the UK has long had an aspect in planning that tries to preserve historic street appearance etc (notwithstanding our share of hideous brutal concrete monstrosities of buildings).

Also as others have said it is generally less maintenance, but a higher initial installation cost. But then you have such cost / trouble for water and gas pipes as well, so it is not unique.

You may still see 33kV lines in a city, but they are often moving underground as well. OK, they are not actually burying themselves! I guess it is also the safety concern of what happens if a truck, etc, hits a pylon next to the road. Outside in the country they are usually run across fields, etc, and not usually just parallel to main roads (at least, in my observations in this area). Some of the DNO folks might have more to add.

 

[richy3333]

Common overhead for supply in north scotland. Only the final run to the property is normally underground where it enters the homeowners land.

 

[R-fur]

Overhead lines are more prone to damage but quicker to repair.

 

[Julie.]

Environmental pressure groups.

Usually there are objections by groups such as "pylon the pressure" or nimbys , generally in the UK, ohl are seen as damaging to the environment from a visual point.

There is also the safety implications, cables are seen as much safer, as the public climbs towers (also sometimes poles), or throws stuff over the lines (shoes/pumps etc) which can come in contact with people etc.

This occurs less so in rural areas, so it tends to just be nimby type objections there.

Major lines throughout the UK have been re-laid underground with the towers and lines removed for areas of outstanding natural beauty, or to ensure picturesque views for tourists etc.

 

[DPG]

Environmental pressure groups.

Usually there are objections by groups such as "pylon the pressure" or nimbys , generally in the UK, ohl are seen as damaging to the environment from a visual point.

There is also the safety implications, cables are seen as much safer, as the public climbs towers (also sometimes poles), or throws stuff over the lines (shoes/pumps etc) which can come in contact with people etc.

This occurs less so in rural areas, so it tends to just be nimby type objections there.

Major lines throughout the UK have been re-laid underground with the towers and lines removed for areas of outstanding natural beauty, or to ensure picturesque views for tourists etc.

Ironically there are environmental groups currently protesting about plans to get rid of some large grid pylons and cables and replace them with underground cables. They say the work will destroy some natural habitats. So there's the strange situation where there were complaints when the pylons went up some decades ago, and now protests about them coming down!

This is at Dunford Bridge if anyone is interested. About 20 miles from me.

 

[Julie.]

Ironically there are environmental groups currently protesting about plans to get rid of some large grid pylons and cables and replace them with underground cables. They say the work will destroy some natural habitats. So there's the strange situation where there were complaints when the pylons went up some decades ago, and now protests about them coming down!

This is at Dunford Bridge if anyone is interested. About 20 miles from me.

Yup,

don't want towers and lines - over my dead body.

What!, you want to remove these towers and lines - over my dead body......

In fairness, en-5 still follows the Holford rules, so not much change in guidance since the 1950's!
[automerge]1597431325[/automerge]

In the US people keep saying its more expensive hence the excuse to keep building new lines overhead.

Ptpg presented "alternative" cost estimates on the use of ugc vs ohl - obviously on the basis they want cables, and don't actually have to deliver it for their cost estimates - it's somewhat over simplistic.

However, the paper does include the more realistic costs from sp manweb that they are challenging

 

[telectrix]

Ironically there are environmental groups currently protesting about plans to get rid of some large grid pylons and cables and replace them with underground cables. They say the work will destroy some natural habitats. So there's the strange situation where there were complaints when the pylons went up some decades ago, and now protests about them coming down!

This is at Dunford Bridge if anyone is interested. About 20 miles from me.

yeah but that's in yorkshire, thems lot will complain about the sun rising and disturbing their sleep.

 

[snowhead]

don't want towers and lines - over my dead body.

What!, you want to remove these towers and lines - over my dead body......

Not forgetting,

What!, you want to replace them with Wind turbines and fill the fields full of P.V panels, that's O.K then.

Don't want Wind turbines or P.V panels - over my dead body......

 

[Cookie]

To be clear I'm not thinking pylons, but everything 34.5kv and below.

 

[Cookie]

Yup,

don't want towers and lines - over my dead body.

What!, you want to remove these towers and lines - over my dead body......

In fairness, en-5 still follows the Holford rules, so not much change in guidance since the 1950's!
[automerge]1597431325[/automerge]

Ptpg presented "alternative" cost estimates on the use of ugc vs ohl - obviously on the basis they want cables, and don't actually have to deliver it for their cost estimates - it's somewhat over simplistic.

However, the paper does include the more realistic costs from sp manweb that they are challenging

Thanks for that paper! Its interesting to read such publications.

 

[Julie.]

To be clear I'm not thinking pylons, but everything 34.5kv and below.

In the uk the're actually called towers if metallic and poles if timber, for some reason the public uses the term pylon if metalic and "telegraph" poles if timber.

(Probably the same way people say someone who has a nose-ring - has an "ear"-ring in their nose!!)

Under en-5 there is no separation between transmission or distribution in terms of applying holford rules.

So the same philosophy applies to transmission towers/poles and distribution towers/power poles.