[BC] Power transmission methodologies

[Bill Smith]

My former employer had a couple of oil filled 115 KV underground cables near
Boston. No way to get the required clearances in an urban area except go
underground. As for wood or steel structures, that has nothing to do with
voltage. I know of 345 KV on wooden poles.

Distribution can be anything up to 36 KV or even higher depending on the
utility.

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net]
> On Behalf Of Robert Meuser
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:25 PM
> To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [BC] Power transmission methodologies
> 
> 
> Dave:
> 
> I think the difference is that most underground power distribution
> systems are in newer construction - areas developed since the late 60s.
> Such construction is relatively easy. Normally a single trench is dug.
> Sewer goes on the bottom, then water, then power and the cable and
> telephone. The cost of the trenching is divided among all the users.
> These areas were usually developed from scratch and the trenchs,
> foundations and road bed basically all created at the same time.  This
> is very much different than going into a developed area and digging up
> streets and yards and punching holes through foundations to deliver the
> service. Also, in many instances there is no right of way fee.
> 
> As other have pointed out, this does not generally apply to higher
> voltage distribution. That makes it possible for voltages about about 15
> KV and below 100 KV to be on typical wood poles which still come down in
> a storm.  Higher voltages are on steel tower which you do not see taken
> out by storms as often.
> 
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Dave Dunsmoor wrote:
> 
> >>>It's been a number of years since I've had to price a power run, but
ISTR
> >>>that PG&E was charging about $10 a foot overhead and somewhat more than
> >>>
> >>>
> >that
> >
> >
> >>>to underground lines.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Underground costs the utility ten to fourteen times the cost of
overhead,
> >>per unit length.
> >>
> >>