Thoughts on electric utilities

http://wabcradio.com/news.asp?c=NEWY...b382d50b8c7ea0

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3uqf46b


--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 11/02/2011 03:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> http://wabcradio.com/news.asp?c=NEWY...http%3A%2F%2Fh
osted2.ap.org%2Fwabcam%2Fc9995d80566c485e95bc658f7 c655dd8%2FArticle_2
011-11-02-Still%2520Wired%2Fid-af31fc3ad01444b7bbb382d50b8c7ea0
>
>
>
>
> or
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/3uqf46b
>
>

jeepers, do we have to go through all this "repeat the old line that
keeps the farm cheap to run" b.s. again?

"moving electrical wires below ground, where they'd be protected from
falling trees, is so expensive that it would likely send consumers'
electric bills sharply higher" we're told. yet residents of new
developments where the utilities are buried and who don't get blacked
out don't pay any more then those with overhead utilities who do. if
the expenses really are "sharply higher", why not?

[and on a "physics" note, i wish some of these freakin' journalists
would bother to talk with someone beyond high school who knows what
they're talking about before writing stuff like "signals transmitted to
our wireless devices are photons that move readily through air". has
nobody ever heard of maxwell? and being confused between radio and
power transmission with the asinine title "why's power hard wired" and
the similarly retarded "the electrons that make up the power supply move
much more efficiently through dense substances like metal wires. So far,
nobody has figured out a way around that" is just ridiculous.]

and the very premise of "the cost to underground all our facilities" is
completely bogus. you don't need to underground "all facilities", just
local distribution. high voltage grid distribution is well handled,
reliable and lives above ground perfectly well.

in summary, it's a typical lightweight article by a journalist who knows
nothing about the technical aspects, who can't apply a little logic to
the usual "cost" argument, and who ultimately gets fobbed off with "too
busy to talk about this now". of course they're too busy to talk about
it now. and this utility won't talk about providing reliable power when
the lights are back on either. but we'll hear nothing from adam geller
then.

oh, and should i mention "jobs for the boys" for the union workers that
get massive overtime repairing what they know will be the usual seasonal
outages in overhead distribution districts?


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/02/2011 03:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> http://wabcradio.com/news.asp?c=NEWY...http%3A%2F%2Fh
> osted2.ap.org%2Fwabcam%2Fc9995d80566c485e95bc658f7 c655dd8%2FArticle_2
> 011-11-02-Still%2520Wired%2Fid-af31fc3ad01444b7bbb382d50b8c7ea0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/3uqf46b
>>
>>
>
> jeepers, do we have to go through all this "repeat the old line that
> keeps the farm cheap to run" b.s. again?
>
> "moving electrical wires below ground, where they'd be protected from
> falling trees, is so expensive that it would likely send consumers'
> electric bills sharply higher" we're told. yet residents of new
> developments where the utilities are buried and who don't get blacked
> out don't pay any more then those with overhead utilities who do. if
> the expenses really are "sharply higher", why not?

It is relatively inexpensive to layout and install an underground electrical
distribution system in a new subdivison before / while the roads, water,
sewer, gas lines, cable, telephone, etc. are being installed. Coming back 50
years later and trying to weave the electrical wiring through the maze of
other underground utilities is not so easy (or cheap). In some hard rock
areas, burying high voltage power lines is impractical. And while overhead
power lines are vulnerable to damage, it is also easy to diagnosis and
repair the damage. Underground wiring is not invulnerable to damage. When it
fails, finding the fault can be very time consuming. The cable used for
underground wiring is also significantly more expensive becasue of
insulation requirements. I believe the people running power companies are
not complete idiots. If burying power lines was cost effective, I think they
would bury them. But even today for power lines through sparcely populated
areas, they build them above ground. Only in new sub-divisions do I
routinely see them buried.

.....

> and the very premise of "the cost to underground all our facilities" is
> completely bogus. you don't need to underground "all facilities", just
> local distribution. high voltage grid distribution is well handled,
> reliable and lives above ground perfectly well.
>
> in summary, it's a typical lightweight article by a journalist who knows
> nothing about the technical aspects, who can't apply a little logic to
> the usual "cost" argument, and who ultimately gets fobbed off with "too
> busy to talk about this now". of course they're too busy to talk about
> it now. and this utility won't talk about providing reliable power when
> the lights are back on either. but we'll hear nothing from adam geller
> then.
>
> oh, and should i mention "jobs for the boys" for the union workers that
> get massive overtime repairing what they know will be the usual seasonal
> outages in overhead distribution districts?


My Mother worked for a power co-op for 50+ years. When were little, we often
went in to work with her. I never once heard a lineman wish for bad wether
so he could get overtime pay. I heard plenty worry about bad weather and
express the hope that it didn't destroy the lines. I suppose after a bad
weather event many enjoyed the overtime pay, but I doubt any of them would
have wished for hurricanes or ice storms so they would get it. My Mother
would spends days at the office after a storm answering calls from angry
Customers and I never once heard her say she was grateful for the
oppurtunity to make a few extra bucks.

Ed

I came across a utility company discussion of overhead vs underground power
lines. Very interesting..

http://www.fpl.com/faqs/underground.shtml

Ed

On 11/03/2011 11:10 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> I came across a utility company discussion of overhead vs underground power
> lines. Very interesting..
>
> http://www.fpl.com/faqs/underground.shtml
>
> Ed
>
>

"it costs FPL between $1,223 and $2,025 per lot to install our standard
overhead service. Underground on the other hand, costs between $1,685
and $2,491 per lot."

that's only 22% more to bury. not exactly prohibitive. and for the
reliability alone, a no-brainer.

but for quarter-on-quarter profitability, overhead is the way to go.
maybe these guys should consider the additional cost of finance if they
didn't enjoy their mandated monopoly status - that might change their
minds.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 11:10 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> I came across a utility company discussion of overhead vs underground
>> power
>> lines. Very interesting..
>>
>> http://www.fpl.com/faqs/underground.shtml
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>
> "it costs FPL between $1,223 and $2,025 per lot to install our standard
> overhead service. Underground on the other hand, costs between $1,685
> and $2,491 per lot."
>
> that's only 22% more to bury. not exactly prohibitive. and for the
> reliability alone, a no-brainer.
>
> but for quarter-on-quarter profitability, overhead is the way to go.
> maybe these guys should consider the additional cost of finance if they
> didn't enjoy their mandated monopoly status - that might change their
> minds.
>
>
You're only as strong as your weakest link.
I live in a 40 year old subdivision of about 14
houses. Have underground power.
The transformer is buried in the corner of my front yard.
There's an easement down the side where they buried the input cable.
It goes down the easement to a pole in the back corner of my yard.
Up the pole through the trees and overhead from there back to the source.
So much for reliability.

On 11/03/2011 06:30 PM, mike wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> On 11/03/2011 11:10 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> I came across a utility company discussion of overhead vs underground
>>> power
>>> lines. Very interesting..
>>>
>>> http://www.fpl.com/faqs/underground.shtml
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "it costs FPL between $1,223 and $2,025 per lot to install our
>> standard overhead service. Underground on the other hand, costs
>> between $1,685 and $2,491 per lot."
>>
>> that's only 22% more to bury. not exactly prohibitive. and for the
>> reliability alone, a no-brainer.
>>
>> but for quarter-on-quarter profitability, overhead is the way to go.
>> maybe these guys should consider the additional cost of finance if
>> they didn't enjoy their mandated monopoly status - that might change
>> their minds.
>>
>>
> You're only as strong as your weakest link.
> I live in a 40 year old subdivision of about 14
> houses. Have underground power.
> The transformer is buried in the corner of my front yard.
> There's an easement down the side where they buried the input cable.
> It goes down the easement to a pole in the back corner of my yard.
> Up the pole through the trees and overhead from there back to the source.
> So much for reliability.

wow, that sounds completely retarded!

there's not a lot of point burying transformers in residential
neighborhoods - they seldom get knocked out unless mounted on poles.
just keep the cables underground where they're not subject to the usual.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 06:30 PM, mike wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2011 11:10 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>> I came across a utility company discussion of overhead vs underground
>>>> power
>>>> lines. Very interesting..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fpl.com/faqs/underground.shtml
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "it costs FPL between $1,223 and $2,025 per lot to install our
>>> standard overhead service. Underground on the other hand, costs
>>> between $1,685 and $2,491 per lot."
>>>
>>> that's only 22% more to bury. not exactly prohibitive. and for the
>>> reliability alone, a no-brainer.
>>>
>>> but for quarter-on-quarter profitability, overhead is the way to go.
>>> maybe these guys should consider the additional cost of finance if
>>> they didn't enjoy their mandated monopoly status - that might change
>>> their minds.
>>>
>>>
>> You're only as strong as your weakest link.
>> I live in a 40 year old subdivision of about 14
>> houses. Have underground power.
>> The transformer is buried in the corner of my front yard.
>> There's an easement down the side where they buried the input cable.
>> It goes down the easement to a pole in the back corner of my yard.
>> Up the pole through the trees and overhead from there back to the source.
>> So much for reliability.
>
> wow, that sounds completely retarded!
>
> there's not a lot of point burying transformers in residential
> neighborhoods - they seldom get knocked out unless mounted on poles.
> just keep the cables underground where they're not subject to the usual.
>
>

Sounds VERY common actually. At least in NY State.

The local Telco goes over/under all over the place, so does power.
in front of my place telco is underground. Go to the neighbors and you
find a pole where it comes up and goes across the lot to another state
road (about 200 feet) goes back underground and to a local switch house.
Comes out of there and goes underground to the other end of town, then
back in the air to the next town, where it drops underground to the main
fiber junction.

Power is even screwier. From the corner less than 1/8th mile there is 3
phase that goes down a different road and over the hill. It goes up and
feeds a different hamlet. The power that feeds my place comes down the
road in front of the house in the air. We are fed off the last
transformer. The feed comes down to the same corner the three phase
stops and turns back down a different state road but stops at the first
pole, right next to a different house on the road behind my place. But
that house is fed from the same transformer that I'm on.

Then if you follow the feed from my place it goes up the road to a farm
about 200 feet up, then it takes a hard right and crosses a pair of
fields to the same road that goes behind my place. From the air it looks
like a loop a Q next to it and an L with no connections between any of
them.

I'll bet there is 15 miles of wire within 3 square miles.
--
Steve W.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:02:57 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> On 11/03/2011 11:10 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> I came across a utility company discussion of overhead vs underground power
>> lines. Very interesting..
>>
>> http://www.fpl.com/faqs/underground.shtml
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>
> "it costs FPL between $1,223 and $2,025 per lot to install our standard
> overhead service. Underground on the other hand, costs between $1,685
> and $2,491 per lot."
>
> that's only 22% more to bury. not exactly prohibitive. and for the
> reliability alone, a no-brainer.
>
> but for quarter-on-quarter profitability, overhead is the way to go.
> maybe these guys should consider the additional cost of finance if they
> didn't enjoy their mandated monopoly status - that might change their
> minds.


It is going to cost them MILLIONS to clean up the mess here in New England.

That should appear as a loss in the Balance SHeet for the quarter...

On 11/04/2011 12:43 AM, hachiroku wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:02:57 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> On 11/03/2011 11:10 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> I came across a utility company discussion of overhead vs underground power
>>> lines. Very interesting..
>>>
>>> http://www.fpl.com/faqs/underground.shtml
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "it costs FPL between $1,223 and $2,025 per lot to install our standard
>> overhead service. Underground on the other hand, costs between $1,685
>> and $2,491 per lot."
>>
>> that's only 22% more to bury. not exactly prohibitive. and for the
>> reliability alone, a no-brainer.
>>
>> but for quarter-on-quarter profitability, overhead is the way to go.
>> maybe these guys should consider the additional cost of finance if they
>> didn't enjoy their mandated monopoly status - that might change their
>> minds.
>
>
> It is going to cost them MILLIONS to clean up the mess here in New England.
>
> That should appear as a loss in the Balance SHeet for the quarter...
>
>

they do have a budget for that stuff, but i doubt they anticipated and
carry one of that size.

i think the union element is a factor as well though. electrical
utilities are pretty much a closed shop - no union, no operation.
winter repairs are a significant source of overtime - i can't see a
consistent effort to reduce maintenance or headcount by burying being
enthusiastically received.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum