Frigidlollipop@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Under ground cabling has a shorter lifespan than above ground and are harder to access due to limited access points for maintenance. They are also prone to things like flooding and tree roots. Still look a heck of a lot better than above ground, though.
BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Thats not true - underground cabling has a longer lifespan as they’re protected from rainfall, surface temperatures and UV. Tree roots and flooding is a factor of maintenance and location. E.g. an inner city location is unlikely to experience flooding and roots can be guided away from cables as they follow path of least resistance.
In much of Europe, buried cables is the norm, and they co-locate with buried gas and water supplies. Telephone cables were the one exception but with fibre optic cables even that is largely underground now especially in dense urban areas.
It does cost more initially but with the benefit of lower cost in maintenance long term.
In Japan cables are often above ground, but presumably because of Earthquake risk. In the US I dont know why buried cables is uncommon. Possibly because many utilities were private and so went for short term cheaper costs? Most European utilities were public owned - and even of now privatised, the expectation remains burying.
Frigidlollipop@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I was always taught maintenance wise that the insulation around underground cabling (which is necessary since earth is a great conductor) degrades and leads to a shorter maintanable life for the cables than above ground ones. I could be wrong, though.