re: Will anything change with entergy?

It’s the same jargon every storm. The terms “unprecedented”, “widespread catastrophic damage”, “asking for your patience”, “we will keep you updated”—which never happens. If it happens every few years, it’s not really unprecedented. I know some really good people who work their arse off for the company but the mgt. really sucks.

quote:

---

It’s hard for lines to go down when they are in the ground. I know they all can’t be in the ground but they sure could reduce the impact when they have fewer lines above ground to fix.

---

Underground power isn’t all its cracked up to be. For starters, it’s incredibly expensive - over 10x the cost per foot of above-ground lines, and that’s for new installations. So in the case of moving an area’s lines underground, imagine the cost to replace ALL of the poles and ALL of the wire in that area… and multiply it by 10.

Second, underground lines are more susceptible to flood damage. Particularly from salt water, which is a risk with storm surge. And when they are damaged, they are, again, much more expensive to repair.

Moving high-voltage transmission lines underground is probably a non-starter anyway.

quote:

---

Underground power isn’t all its cracked up to be. For starters, it’s incredibly expensive - over 10x the cost per foot of above-ground lines, and that’s for new installations. So in the case of moving an area’s lines underground, imagine the cost to replace ALL of the poles and ALL of the wire in that area… and multiply it by 10.

Second, underground lines are more susceptible to flood damage. Particularly from salt water, which is a risk with storm surge. And when they are damaged, they are, again, much more expensive to repair.

Moving high-voltage transmission lines underground is probably a non-starter anyway.

---

Entergy care rep, is that you?

I've lived with underground lines for years and the only sustained power loss comes from when a tree falls on the above ground lines elsewhere

quote:

---

Entergy care rep, is that you?

---

Ah yes, the classic “you aren’t holding a pitch fork so you must be one of them.”

quote:

---

I've lived with underground lines for years and the only sustained power loss comes from when a tree falls on the above ground lines elsewhere

---

And? Have the areas where your lines are located experienced significant salt water flooding during that time? Do you have reason to believe the cost was less than what I suggested?

If not, how does that discredit anything I said?

They won't come fix out line even though it is wrapped on a neighbors house. To me this would be a priority as it is a dangerous situation since it caused some issues the other night but apparently not

quote:

---

Underground power isn’t all its cracked up to be. For starters, it’s incredibly expensive - over 10x the cost per foot of above-ground lines, and that’s for new installations. So in the case of moving an area’s lines underground, imagine the cost to replace ALL of the poles and ALL of the wire in that area… and multiply it by 10.

Second, underground lines are more susceptible to flood damage. Particularly from salt water, which is a risk with storm surge. And when they are damaged, they are, again, much more expensive to repair.

---

Always struck me as a bit of a how do you eat an elephant question. Just bite by bite and need to start somewhere. It’s undeniable the quarter and CBD have the most reliable power and it’s buried. Utility lines in neighborhoods like Lakeview have back alleys where lines could be buried without impacting streets and sewer.

Yes it’s expensive but outages are so frequent in the city. As to the saltwater point I’m sure that’s correct. On the other hand if there is saltwater running through the streets of New Orleans again it’s game over anyway and the system is destroyed.

quote:

---

I do not know the cost of underground lines but I have a sneaking suspicion it is one of those investments that pay off in the long run.

---

The point that I’m trying to get across is that it doesn’t pay for itself. At least not in the literal sense - i.e. the reduced maintenance costs will not offset the cost of installation within any reasonable time period.

North Carolina did a feasibility study on underground power in 2002. They determined the cost would be $41 billion, it would take 25 years to complete, and would require customers’ rates to double in order to pay for it.

So it comes down to that question - would the increased reliability be worth paying 2x as much in electricity rates? For most people, I suspect the answer is no.