Re: Sandy
 

This is true, except for those in the Tea Party republican fold.

Re: Sandy
 

At least earthquakes are far less frequent than hurricanes and blizzards. Underground cabling could be made somewhat earthquake proof, not totally, but there comes the cost again.

Re: Sandy
 

Exactly - when they rebuild your infrastructure, it'll probably be rebuilt the same as before, i.e. just as vulnerable. That's what we found after the 1998 ice storm. Were lessons learned? Don't know but probably no funding for more robust systems..
Hope things get more comfortable for you soon in respect to electricity & other services..

Re: Sandy
 

sorry, I read it differently :o

Re: Sandy
 

That's all right, my post wasn't very clear.

Re: Sandy
 

When you speak of electrical infrastructure, do you mean transmission:

http://www.telecommunication-equipme...-sd01-3a-b.jpg

or distribution:

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/electricity-4.jpg

Or both. I must have sinned badly because for a while, I had to design both to make a living.

Re: Sandy
 

Is that Japan? It looks like it.
How are the ATMs? Are people in badly hit areas able to withdraw money? Has crime increased?

Re: Sandy
 

When we had the ice storm in January 1998 in northern New York State, both of the above systems were totally or partially destroyed mainly due to the weight of the ice build up. Trees falling on the lines were also a problem..

Re: Sandy
 

Surely it doesn't have to be an either/or across the whole country? Do whatever is best to suit local conditions, so if burying cables isn't good in earthquake prone areas you wouldn't do it in much of the West coast, but it would be great in areas prone to wind and/or snow and/or ice. I hadn't realised it increased the cost of transmission so much so on a purely economic factor, would it be worth it versus the cheaper overhead + occaisional weather outage? As has been said upthread, the actual cost to customers (both residential and business, emotional and financial) don't seem to factor in the equation here.

Mind you, the same argument can be made for anything underground in earthquake areas - I believe there were issues with water, gas and sewer pipes after the Christchurch quake (liquefaction caused pipes to "rise", damaging 80% of water and sewer services according to wiki). And yet we still do it....

Re: Sandy
 

The transmission line is in China but we have many similar, the distribution is American. I don't know about ATMs in Jersey NY and Connecticut but with the power out....

Re: Sandy
 

It's the same every year...at least once a year. This time last year we were in exactly the same position because of snow. The US needs to get its arse in gear and get it sorted out.

Re: Sandy
 

Speaking of, the meme going around with Romney as Gov for MA vetoing the plans to spend $5.7M in flood prevention in Peabody...which 2 years later, the downtown flooded and cost $12M to fix...

Re: Sandy
 

Indeed...and how often does the east coast get earthquakes? Well New England and the Tri-state area at least?

The power is always on the fuzz or going down in the winter due to a blizzard or even some light snow fall that pulls a tree or utility pole down.

Re: Sandy
 

There is a cost benefit balance. In NY it is a "Heavy Loading District" and was designed for 1/2" of radial ice on the wires and structure and a 4 lbs/sq. ft. wind load. Higher wind loads shake the ice from the wires. We have had storms following others in fast succession so more ice gets added. This may, or may not, be attributable to GW.

Re: Sandy
 

I've posted this comparison of overhead and underground transmission and distribution before. Note the voltage limitations etc.

http://www.puc.nh.gov/2008IceStorm/S...2006-09-09.pdf