Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Undaedalus t1_jc5pp88 wrote

It's not the grid, it's the trees. Falling branches from our trees take down power lines.

127

futureygoodness t1_jc6jj1a wrote

If we updated the grid to bury power lines we wouldn’t have to worry about trees.

24

vwturbo t1_jc6oaol wrote

As someone who works in the industry, it gets old hearing that we should just bury the lines. This works in dense areas, but for rural areas (like the vast majority of NH) it is extremely cost prohibitive. Installing buried conduit, manholes, transformer foundations, etc. is often upwards of $200-$300 per FOOT of buried conduit. Even more expensive if it has to be concrete-encased, or God forbid there is ledge (rock) in the way that needs to be hammered out (btw this is New Hampshire, the Granite State, there is ledge absolutely EVERYWHERE). And that doesn't even include the cost of installing (pulling, splicing) the actual cables and transformers themselves.

132

rsex77 t1_jc74f6o wrote

Agreed. The only time underground makes sense is in densely populated areas where utilities and ground composition allows it.

24

Hot-Specialist-6824 t1_jc7ls94 wrote

New developments can and certainly have put their utilities underground since they're already putting in roads and possibly drainage/sewers. But these eventually lead back out to power lines above ground. That's the case where I live, and I know if we lose power there's probably quite a few who have also lost it.

3

schillerstone t1_jcawt8a wrote

What's the cost per foot to trim trees, maintain poles, and respond to downed wires? You need to be able to answer this question in order to assert burying lines is too expensive.

2

vwturbo t1_jcbjvzv wrote

The savings on maintenance and repairs over the life of the facilities are, generally, much less than the difference in initial construction costs.

There are also maintenance costs associated with buried infrastructure that you are not acknowledging. Drastic changes in temperature, tree roots, flooding, damage from animals, damage from vehicles, etc, all cause damaged conduit and/or damaged cable, which is usually costly and disruptive to repair. Above-ground facilities are obviously way more exposed and therefore damaged more often, but the repairs are generally relatively inexpensive and simple compared to repairs of UG facilities.

1

Jrzgrl1119 t1_jc826ih wrote

I lived in Alaska. The power lines were buried. I did not live in a heavily populated area. There is so much ledge in Alaska! I never lost power the 4 years I lived there and we got a lot of snow.

1

vwturbo t1_jcbljau wrote

I'm intrigued by this. Not sure why you're being downvoted.

This is just speculation, but from what limited knowledge I have about Alaska, even though it is not densely populated overall people tend to live in villages somewhat close to each other, correct? Even if a town only has a couple hundred people, if they all live relatively nearby to one another in a village, buried lines would make sense.

Another possible reason, response to downed lines is probably much more expensive and time consuming in such a large and remote area, so the larger upfront cost to bury lines may pay off quicker than in a smaller state like NH.

Are most long-distance transmission lines buried up there? Or just the distribution infrastructure that goes from building to building?

1

Cantide756 t1_jc8e93r wrote

Don't forget servicing and flooding of those concrete tubes

1

[deleted] t1_jc7mgjy wrote

[deleted]

−2

fffangold t1_jc7t9nn wrote

Sure. Since you aren't using any electricity during the outage, you won't be charged since you aren't using the electricity that isn't there.

8

vwturbo t1_jc7nptw wrote

I’m not saying change is bad lol. It’s obvious our existing system needs help. I’m saying that better tree trimming and maintenance, and more resilient above-ground infrastructure is almost always going to be a better and more cost effective solution for NH than burying cables will be on a large scale.

4

Andromeda321 t1_jc6nr4t wrote

This isn’t super cost effective in areas with exceptionally rocky ground like NH.

30

Leemcardhold t1_jc6qm61 wrote

Yeah, anyone who’s dropped a shovel In the ground here knows digging ain’t easy

15

Andromeda321 t1_jc6r6g1 wrote

Or sees those beautiful stone walls randomly in the woods! I always feel so sorry for those farmers.

6

Leemcardhold t1_jc7ab90 wrote

There’s a quote from George’s Washington’s visit to NH. It’s something like ‘their corn crop is ok. The apples are nothing to write home about, but my god the stone walls are beautiful and bountiful!’

7

tomsbradys t1_jc8n2bo wrote

They had tons of time late winter waiting on spring… hahaha

2

Least-Car6096 t1_jc7379n wrote

Right?! It is one of my favorite parts of living in New England. I cannot even imagine having to dig up & move ALL those rocks in order to plant crops. I feel an overwhelming sense of nostalgia and gratitude whenever I see one

3

Andromeda321 t1_jc73k6z wrote

100%! Life must have been so hard if farming in New Hampshire seemed like a good idea. The only shocking thing to me is that people didn't say "eff that" and move to Ohio and the like much earlier.

5

bassboat1 t1_jc7ced2 wrote

As someone who's gardened in NH for decades, there's a fresh crop of rocks every year!

4

Least-Car6096 t1_jc7gsmw wrote

🤣 you must be jacked! And have a lot of dented up shovels

2

Hot-Specialist-6824 t1_jc7l3g1 wrote

New England potatoes lol.

3

Least-Car6096 t1_jc7n2ba wrote

My Dad always called them that😂 and then when I moved from MA to NH I learned that allegedly the very first crop of white potatoes ever planted & harvested in America were grown right here in our town by the first Scottish settlers! Life always comes full circle. There are so many rock walls around here!

1

Artemusfowle t1_jc83rm1 wrote

Moving a stone wall is illegal in NH. These are actual boundary lines, in many cases. You can rebuild a stone wall that has failed with building permits, et al.

2

Oldphile t1_jc8ir8a wrote

Yup. One of the boundary lines on my property is defined by a stone wall.

3

besafenh t1_jc7keeu wrote

Do you notice they are waist high on a 1850s average height man? Some walls in Dunbarton are over 4 feet wide.

Doorknobs at that house were pocket height.

2

P0Rt1ng4Duty t1_jc97gwx wrote

The only way you could have 'dropped a shovel in the ground here' is if you were already standing above a hole.

2

nullcompany t1_jc6qkip wrote

It might be less money to put a human on Mars, than to trench the granite state.

15

nowhereman1223 t1_jc7a12g wrote

Why do you think Verizon ditched NH in the middle of the Fiber Upgrade?

Underground wasn't feasible and above ground has issues with the trees.

6

nullcompany t1_jc8dz1g wrote

Why do I believe they did? Well, as a tiny ISP trying to sell competing DSL on wholesale Verizon copper in 2007 (and failing at it because of their monopoly), the joke we made at the time was that Verizon was terrified a Democrat might win the 2008 election and do something nuts like mandate broadband for everyone. And Maine/NH/VT were the fastest way to lose on that deal, so they sold them off and laughed all the way to the bank.

2

nowhereman1223 t1_jca3rpd wrote

And why wouldn't they make it available in Maine, NH, VT?

Because of the feasibility. The profit just wasn't there.

1

nowhereman1223 t1_jc79uzp wrote

Its called the granite state for a reason.

Plus buried lines means Jim Bob deciding to put in a fence, pond, or just dig for the hell of it, results in power outages and possible dead people.

Buried lines ARE NOT the answer for a state as rural as NH.

​

The answer is home owners allowing the utility to trim and remove trees that will cause issues with the lines. Most outages are caused by preventable tree limb damage. If the utility was allowed to go after home owners that declined to have the trimming done, it would get better fast.

7

widget_fucker t1_jc7k2r3 wrote

Jim Bob lives everywhere. In fact, dare i say our baseline intelligence skews much higher than the national average.

Its all about the granite legde, granite rock bullshit!

3

savingeverybody t1_jc8eyeh wrote

NH has the highest average IQ* of any state!

  • Yeah, I know IQ tests are bad.
1

Ogre213 t1_jc82wmt wrote

The utilities have an absolute right to take trees that threaten the lines. The answer is them actually doing their damn job instead of cheating out on maintenance and pocketing the difference.

1

nowhereman1223 t1_jca3n62 wrote

They don't have the right to remove trees or limbs from your property.

Just like you don't have the right to remove your neighbor's tree because it hangs near your property or "might" fall on your house.

They must get permission or they can get sued by landowners.

3

Ogre213 t1_jcag37j wrote

They hold easements for their lines that permit them to clear on privately owned lands. These easements also permit them to ignore wetland and other environmental laws broadly and without prior approval.

1

nowhereman1223 t1_jcaotmm wrote

Are you aware those easements don't cover the trees that aren't on the easement?

They aren't airspace easements.

If the tree is on the property owners' land and not on the easement, they need to get approval.

Don't get me wrong a lot of companies shirked maintenance. But they haven't been doing that for about a decade now. Every minute power is down and they have crews out working at double OT overnight for days straight.... they are losing MASSIVE amounts of money.

The math doesn't work out unless you are referring to super rural areas with only a few customers on a single line that covers miles and miles. But anywhere that has any density at all.... it doesn't make sense to not maintain it.

The power company isn't the internet company that charges you whether the service works or not. The power companies have a vested interest in keeping you connected and drawing power constantly.

2

FrostyGranite t1_jc84q98 wrote

In my neighborhood, all the side roads have utilities underground. However… the main road which serves everyone, the lines are above ground. Never fails we loose power, going on 7 hours now and Eversource has no idea as the crews have not been out to evaluate.

1

realbusabusa t1_jc7j0o7 wrote

The solution is obvious: make the utility poles out of granite 🪨💪

8

[deleted] t1_jc83fyb wrote

We had trees back in the 80s and 90s. Never lost power as often as we do now. The reason is because PSNH was proactive all year in pruning and clearing potential hazards. In the last two decades, profit became priority over safety and the decision-makers determined it a better strategy to do minimal preventive work and increase spend on reactive work.

6

GrayGhost_1 t1_jca9rsn wrote

Yes! I remember an ice storm 10 or so years ago and power was out for over a week in most of NH. The electric company got a big fine for that and for the next two years they were pruning like beavers. Now we have the same situation. "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I hope they get socked with a big enough fine to make remember this for a while!

3

OPINION_IS_UNPOPLAR t1_jc75o3a wrote

Which is compounded by the need for land/homeowners to give permission to cut down problematic trees/branches.

2

natethegreek t1_jc7j314 wrote

yes and with the proper labor force/investment they can be pruned so there are not nearly as many branches. I grew up in Northern Vermont on an island and had much more reliable power than in the lakes region of NH.

1

besafenh t1_jc7lkih wrote

The “tree huggers” aren’t environmentalists. They’re your neighbors.

“OMG you can’t cut the trees along the road! I love that shaded rural lane feeling when running or walking my dogs!”

The Emerald Ash Borer has rendered most of those trees into would be firewood. Standing dead for now, falling on power lines soon. Eversource has “trimming contracts” out right now. What it needs (as does your town) is felling contracts, removing ALL of the trees within the defined Right of Way.

Likely resulting in lawsuits from landowners and environmentalists. Meaning it won’t happen, despite a clear authority in the Right of Way grant.

4

decayo OP t1_jc5q5gu wrote

To be clear, I understand that is the source of the problem, but there doesn't appear to be any resiliency. It seems like every tree fall hits a single point of failure that wipes out huge areas. I get it; multiple trees fall, but looking at the outage map, I doubt 20 trees suddenly all fell at exactly the same moment and the fact that one or two falls led to this large of an outage is wild.

−15

NHDraven t1_jc5rcrz wrote

New England doesn't want to spend money to retrofit underground utilities. Instead, they want to pump massive money into spot repairs.

6

draggar t1_jc68jei wrote

This just isn't New England. I lived in south Florida for 10 years and all the older neighborhoods have above-ground wiring and the areas won't spend the money to put them underground, even though hundreds of poles and countless wires will go down with each hurricane - and the newer areas with underground lines are usually quick to get their power back since there's no individual repairs.

14

RelativeMotion1 t1_jc6kic7 wrote

At $2 million per mile, there would need to be an awful lot of spot repairs to justify that.

Not that it doesn’t sound nice; power lines and poles gone, ROWs clear and open. Just don’t see how the cost would be justifiable, especially given the likely effect on rates.

10

Andromeda321 t1_jc6o1k9 wrote

It’s one of those things that are exceptionally region dependent. I lived in the Netherlands for example and all the power lines were underground due to sandy soil, power went out maybe once in the five years I was there. But I can tell you right now, NH soil sure isn’t like it was there!

6

RelativeMotion1 t1_jc6oyyj wrote

Yeah the $2m/mi figure is an average, and I suspect it would be more in many parts of NH due to difficult terrain and the prevalence of rock.

6

AKBigDaddy t1_jc7gys1 wrote

It would be an incredibly long term investment- you're not going to see an ROI for likely 20+ years. But it would pay for itself long term. And in the mean time it would provide residents with far more reliable service.

−1

MusicalMerlin1973 t1_jc6sucr wrote

A lot of it has to do with an unwillingness to do line maintenance now. Whether it’s the corporation or people unwilling to have trees trimmed because scenic historic character blah blah blah. Also has to do with the fact we get a lot more wet snow storms than we used to.

I grew up here. I can count on one hand the number of times we lost power in the 80s and 90s. It was an exceptional situation. I live across the street from my childhood home now so apples to apples comparison. My generator usage is far more common than when we first built our house. We didn’t have multiple mud seasons every winter.

Count your blessings. If you live inland you’re fairly immune to hurricanes. Odds of a class 5 making it here are low. Odds of forest fire are still statistically low compared to other regions. Tornadoes are still a rare albeit increasing occurrence. Low risk of significant earthquake.

4

nowhereman1223 t1_jc7ajbk wrote

What do you want to power company to do?

Are you suggesting they have the ability to power EVERY house from multiple directions?

The cost to do that in rural areas is prohibitive.

If you have an issue with outages, get solar, get wind, get a propane or natural gas powered generator. Chances are it's cheaper than the grid power anyway. Heck, a decent gas generator might be close to reasonable with the electric prices right now.

2