Re:Where else in London are there pylons?
by OJFord on Wednesday October 26, 2022 @09:54AM
(#33343726)
Christ, seriously? I assumed they'd henceforth be underground everywhere - in Dorset some (Milliken) are being replaced with underground cabling, after a petition based on countryside views I believe, but it benefits/doesn't disrupt farmers' fields & future developments too. Presumably once you have that sort of underground trunking it's easier to add other utilities too (even if they don't share any hardware/boring, there's still the planning and mapping etc.).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Where else in London are there pylons?
by namibj on Wednesday October 26, 2022 @10:16AM
(#33344060)
Non-superconducting electrical transmission lines don't want to be buried, it's really expensive and harder to handle/deal with when stuff breaks.
You also can't have forest on top of it.
One can hope we get by with the current approach until superconducting lines have been sufficiently figured out (it seems they don't need to run the voltage as high due to current being somewhat easier to deal with than voltage and losses not depending (significantly) on actual current (so thicker cables don't loose as much of their current rating to thermal limits than with traditional cooper/aluminum)).
Re:Where else in London are there pylons?
by brudgers on Wednesday October 26, 2022 @10:19AM
(#33344102)
Underground utilities are usually significantly more expensive to construct. That's why overhead power lines are so common.
The installation cost is tends to be so much higher that the potentially lower maintenance costs due to less weather damage doesn't make underground lines lower cost in the two to five decade maturities of utility bonds used for financing.