246

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)?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] zxqwas@lemmy.world 125 points 1 week ago

It's roughly 5-7 times as expensive per km to bury the cables. It's mainly a cost issue.

It makes sense in dense areas, it does not make sense everywhere. Critical infrastructure has backup power anyway because digging does not solve all reliability issues.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago

Here in Aroostook county Maine I can tell you I have yet to see anywhere that didn’t have everything on telephone poles. Not that I can recall anyway.

[-] MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Converting existing (and i hope working) infra has its own problems too and unless its absolutelly necessary it often gets sidelined.

You cant just dig a trench and drop the lines there. You need to make sure roadsides have enough space and if at any point it would require purchasing or getting permit from land owners it will get quickly complicate. Especially if there are many different owners on the stretch.

There needs to also be plans and precautions to secure that the electricity wont be cut for too long time during the work.

Also the road sides migh need to be cleaned from any vegetation and stones that might be big enough to be problem, not to mention the road it self might need additional work if its badly kept or if they need to widen it and that all rounds back to making sure there is enough space.

Its much easier to build underground cables from the get go, than change infrastructure that was build with telephone poles in mind.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] lime@feddit.nu 60 points 1 week ago

sweden hasn't had residential power lines on poles since like the 70's. when i visited north america in 2008 i was shocked by the aerial rats' nests everywhere.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

Meanwhile as an American Japan shocked me with their electrical situation. Modern buildings just running wires openly along the walls and even urban areas having overhead wiring

[-] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 week ago

Japan is one of the exceptions though, they get a lot of earthquakes.

load more comments (43 replies)
[-] LeSeiko@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago

They are. In developed countries.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 39 points 1 week ago

Don't make the mistake of looking at one region and generalising to a universal. Where are you looking at?

Here in Switzerland practically everything <1kV is buried.
For high voltage lines they have only built one section to experiment so far. It's pretty expensive, heats the ground a bit and blocks water with all the concrete, so it's not so clear if it's a good choice for agriculture happening above.

I've wondered a lot why they don't bury more infrastructure in hurricane regions in the US for example.

[-] Soulg@ani.social 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It sure is frustrating as an American to be like "why is x not done this other way that's better and makes more sense?" And for the almost universal answer to be "we do it that way in "

Not frustrated at you, frustrated at the US

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 week ago

Because it's much harder to bury things above ground.

[-] BodePlotHole@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

Almost anything infrastructure related, however it exists is probably the most efficient cost/maintenance ratio for that area. That is basically the only requirement for the engineers in charge of designing that kind of shit.

Unless you're the Texas power grid. Then it's literally the cheapest possible way to still be able to bill people for it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sangriaferret@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 week ago

My city sits on a filled in swamp.

[-] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 week ago

My entire state if we're honest.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gigastasio@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 week ago

There’s a pragmatic reason too. Power lines and transformers need constant maintenance. When the line fails somewhere, it’s easier to access when you don’t have to dig, and also less disruptive.

Also, they’re up high because people in general are dumb af and will fuck with them if they’re within reach.

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Power lines need way less maintenance if you bury them.

Orders of magnitude less maintenance.

[-] DrBob@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago

The cost to reach them to diagnose and replace outweighs the decreased maintenance. Digging is really expensive.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

physics. cost.

lived a lot of places, some of which (like here in PNW) have neighborhood buried cables. It's lovely, and hella reliable. We don't lose power in windstorms or floods or snow.

It is expensive. And not appropriate for all places - for example, places with high water tables won't be able to do it, like Louisiana - you can't keep the water out year round even with a billion pumps. Also hard to do in places with bedrock near the surface for expense reasons.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 week ago

Harder to maintain if it is underground.

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago

Nonsense. It's just about being cheaper.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Saving money is a valid choice, but it may just be short term outlook here.

My brother used to work for a public electric utility and they buried their power lines where possible. The neighboring private utility guys always pointed out how much cheaper their lines were to maintain. But the public utility had solid data providing they saved money over the long term, by better protecting their lines

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago

Which is what i'm saying.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Maintenance, modification, assessment, and initial installation are all more difficult. And yes that means more expensive, and yes the cost difference is significant. It is more resource and personnel intense to work underground lines than overhead.

When it comes to damage from weather, while underground lines can be slightly more resilient they are much, much more of a pain to assess and and fix. A good line crew can put up a new pole in about an hour. It takes a lot longer to run underground digging equipment.

In some places underground lines are run, of course, because for various reasons the associated downsides are deemed worth it. However when you're looking at a whole infrastructure, you want easy to service, fast to install, and cost efficient.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago

Cost, difficulty, and harder to maintaince. Want to add new coax cable? Sure toss it up. New housing being? Split it. Fiber, yep throw where the coax is. Etc. (its still high voltage, so regulations for safety obviaouly play a role here too).

Underground? Is there rock too hard to drill there? A gas line? Did we just cut an active internet line or just some junk? Tree roots? Will it containate a water table? Will it shift and break the line here? Great we have conduit, is it broken? Leakage? Big enough to handle a high gauge for an upgrade?

i say this as man in love with a good tunnel and conduit. Trust me when i say, yes we ought to do it in general, but also yes is a pain in the ass.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Squizzy@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

You don't pay for all the space between poles. Its also cheaper ad quicker to stand a pole than to build a manhole.

It would be better for everyone if was all underground. It is purely cost with a smidgen of time efficiency.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

They generally are, in rich countries. In poorer countries with less developed infrastructure you can still commonly find them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Bit unsightly too

i actually love them, aesthetically.

i think they're cheaper to replace/repair in earthquake prone regions

ALSO if you're in a snowy remote region, serial killers LOVE to snip these so they can "pick people off" one-by-one. This might seem detrimental to the local economy, by virtue of depleting the workforce, but serial killers are great for local tourism once they're put away.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Denjin@feddit.uk 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Money.

I work in different utility but the principal is the same. It costs roughly 10x as much to bury cables in the ground than it does to put them in the air on poles.

It tends to make sense in dense urban environments or where there's other factors but for almost all rural and suburban settings the costs to dig in underground cables, ducting, access structures and the associated safety concerns, plus the increased costs to access and repair, far outweigh the possible costs of running cables overhead, even though they're more susceptible to damage.

edit:sp

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] EdibleSource@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

One reason for my region: overhead lines on wooden poles will better withstand an earthquake and will be quicker to rebuild after a major disaster. Stuff underground will get all shifted around or filled with water and mud.

load more comments (1 replies)

Go dig a trench the length of every city street in the world, and come back and tell me how easy that was.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

Would you rather spend $100 for a 5% chance of losing power for 4-8 hours per year, or spend $10,000 dollars for a .1% chance of losing power for a minimum of 2 days?

[-] gustofwind@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Is that the real cost differential? Someone else said it’s only 5-7x more expensive which doesn’t sound that bad

Not to discount the significance of such expenses but 5-7x is way different than 100x the expense

also the value of lost power can be significant, if someone dies you lose all their economic output for life and some people can work from home so even a few hundred people losing power could add up and have been worth paying for underground cables

[-] andyburke@fedia.io 8 points 1 week ago

Have you, personally, ever had to maintain something that is buried?

Because I used to think buried wires were the way to go, too. I am older and wiser now.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] palordrolap@fedia.io 10 points 1 week ago

Where I live, all the power, except major cross-country transmission, is underground.

You do find more minor transmission lines out where it gets rural, right down to telegraph-style wooden poles, but you'll pretty much never see it in cities or suburbs. (Wooden telephone poles are a different matter).

The only advantage of power-by-pole is ease of repair. Once it's underground, it has to share trunking with the other utilities in the area, and I'm pretty sure the number of times a road needs to be dug up varies as the square of the number of utilities under it.

But at least it's relatively safe under there when the road isn't being dug up for the fourth time in a year.

[-] axexrx@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

There are several environmental factors that generally contribute to underground viability.

Ground water- obviously flooding, but evem heavy rain areas, or just high humid soil levels can create problems (cables produce heat, while soil's usually cool so condensation can be a problem wherever theres a splice/ junction)

And speaking of cables producing heat, this can become its own problem. Dirt acts as an insulator for heat. Since the transfer of large amounts of electricity produces heat, unless your ground is cold enough to actively cool them, this means derating the cables (using much larger ones to transfer the same power) which greatly raises the cost.

This is why even in cooler climates, hi voltage / long range transfer is done above ground.

Earthquakes and ground frost difference issues can also cause cables to get sheared.

Ofc, above ground power has plenty of its own issues- trees falling forest fire areas, just general exposure to the elements.

But generally, ease and expense to fix issues, and relative lack of disruption to infrastructure while doing so, win out, Making above ground preferable if there are any potential issues with underground.

Theres also a bit of a political aspect that should be mentioned- who owns the lines- burial is always more costly, so if energy co's own the lines like in america, theyre rarely going to want to spend the extra money burrying and unburrying to fix/ add, unless its really more cost effective. (Or the municipality is footing the bill/ has already done the infrastructure, like a lot of denser urban areas in the US, like NYC and DC. )

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

When my mom got fiber internet, they had to dig a trench through everyone’s front yard in the neighborhood. They managed to destroy one of her Christmas yard decorations.

When I got fiber internet, a dude in a truck ran it from a pole across the street in like two hours.

[-] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

People seriously underestimate how disruptive underground work is. Imagine instead of a neighborhood with lawns a dense urban area full of concrete, asphalt, and plumbing and how long it would take to retrofit overhead power infrastructure to underground. People would be furious.

[-] Smoogs@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Probably harder to maintain easier fixes in colder areas where the ground freezes for half a year.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] krull_krull@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

Let me reverse the question

Why do power cables need to be buried in non dense urban area?

Yes it will make it a bit ugly, but so what?. It's not like it being ugly will do anything anyway. It's not like being a bit ugly is a very annoying thing unlike when there a trash heap and it smells bad.

I think we should just keep it up there for sub-urban and rural areas, and invest the saved money on other things.

Also, im from developing country so my perspective is bit different for this topic.

[-] Mailloche@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

I work for a Telco and most of our service interruptions are caused by fibre cuts, falling trees on poles, and ice or fire damage to aerial cables. Underground is just so much better.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] toynbee@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

It makes life harder on Spider-Man if you bury things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

AC lines would get large capacitance losses being buried vs. overhead. ElectroBOOM explains why in his vid about high-voltage DC lines starting at this point in the vid.

Granted this is at high voltages in the five-digit range and beyond, and I'm not sure how much that would matter at 240V split-phase that homes typically get in North America*, but that's a technical reason why power lines are still overhead regardless; it's more efficient and with less capacitance losses to have overhead power lines spaced far apart than to bury them.

*Yes, really, I meant what I said, North American homes still get 240V, but it's split down the middle; 120V circuits for things like lighting and such, and normal devices that you plug into a NEMA-5 outlet such as portable space heaters, use a single hot line and a neutral line while 240V circuits for high-powered appliances like clothes dryers, ovens, HVAC systems, and things of that nature, use both hot lines, and optionally neutral in addition for things in, say, an oven or a dryer that only need 120V such as lighting, while the heating elements need 240V in those applications.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2026
246 points (96.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

37547 readers
2163 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS