I found this on the web:
Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997 and 6.5% in 2007. By using underground DC transmission, these losses can be cut in half. Underground cables can be larger diameter because they do not have the constraint of light weight that overhead conductors have. In general, losses are estimated from the discrepancy between power produced (as reported by power plants) and power sold to the end customers; the difference between what is produced and what is consumed constitute transmission and distribution losses, assuming no theft of utility occurs.
6.5% is a lot of power and adds up quickly. I think that if we can find a better way to transport power we could save a lot of money and not have to burn as much coal.
Power lines are also not very safe and can cause fires. If we can think of a different solution, let's say lasers, we can loose less power.
I am going to be taking a brake from this project and I might not get back to it for a while. I am going to try to make a smart bike that can tell you the temperature, how fast you are going, wind speed and direction, time, and keep trak of distance like a normal bicycle speedomitere. Check out my profile for that project.
I found that today's power lines are made from strands of aluminum wire for current with steel strands for reinforcement.
I wondered, why aren't power lines made of copper?
I found that aluminum only has 61% of the conductivity of copper.
I also found that the main reason power lines are made of aluminum is because it is lighter. Because power lines have to go between poles, copper would be too heavy. If copper can conduct better that aluminum, and you lose less electricity with wires underground, why not have only underground copper wires?
This is what I found:
"Such an undertaking would cost approximately $41 billion, nearly six times the net book value of the utilities' current distribution assets, and would require approximately 25 years to complete," the report states. Customers' rates would have to more than double to pay for the project, the commission' staff found.
It would be EXPENSIVE!
Even though it would be expensive, It would pay off in the future because of all of the power we would save and there would be no more trees falling on power lines and causing fires.
If we put all power lines underground how much would it cost to make all of the power lines copper?
copper - $2.78 per pound
aluminum - $0.84 per pound
We can see that aluminum is a lot cheaper that copper so If power lines were going to be made of copper, it would have to really pay off in order to be worth the huge price.
Just as a thought, if we could get copper easier it would bring the price down a lot. Mining asteroids could do that so maybe in the future, power lines will be made of copper.
I am going to try and test the conductivity of copper compared to aluminum some time soon so look for that in the future.
With a laser beam centered on its panel of photovoltaic cells, a lightweight model plane makes the first flight of an aircraft powered by a laser beam inside a building at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
In the case of electromagnetic radiation closer to the visible region of the spectrum (tens of micrometers to tens of nanometers), power can be transmitted by converting electricity into a laser beam that is then pointed at a photovoltaic cell. This mechanism is generally known as "power beaming" because the power is beamed at a receiver that can convert it to electrical energy.
Compared to other wireless methods:
Collimated monochromatic wavefront propagation allows narrow beam cross-section area for transmission over large distances. Compact size: solid state lasers fit into small products. No radio-frequency interference to existing radio communication such as Wi-Fi and cell phones. Access control: only receivers hit by the laser receive power.
Drawbacks include:
Laser radiation is hazardous. Low power levels can blind humans and other animals. High power levels can kill through localized spot heating. Conversion between electricity and light is inefficient. Photovoltaic cells achieve only 40%–50% efficiency.[56] (Efficiency is higher with monochromatic light than with solar panels). Atmospheric absorption, and absorption and scattering by clouds, fog, rain, etc., causes up to 100% losses. Requires a direct line of sight with the target. With a laser beam centered on its panel of photovoltaic cells, a lightweight model plane makes the first flight of an aircraft powered by a laser beam inside a building at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
In the case of electromagnetic radiation closer to the visible region of the spectrum (tens of micrometers to tens of nanometers), power can be transmitted by converting electricity into a laser beam that is then pointed at a photovoltaic cell. This mechanism is generally known as "power beaming" because the power is beamed at a receiver that can convert it to electrical energy.
Compared to other wireless methods:
Collimated monochromatic wavefront propagation allows narrow beam cross-section area for transmission over large distances.
Compact size: solid state lasers fit into small products.
No radio-frequency interference to existing radio communication such as Wi-Fi and cell phones.
Access control: only receivers hit by the laser receive power.
Drawbacks include:
Laser radiation is hazardous. Low power levels can blind humans and other animals. High power levels can kill through localized spot heating.
Conversion between electricity and light is inefficient. Photovoltaic cells achieve only 40%–50% efficiency.(Efficiency is higher with monochromatic light than with solar panels).
Atmospheric absorption, and absorption and scattering by clouds, fog, rain, etc., causes up to 100% losses.
Requires a direct line of sight with the target.
It seams like that would not be a good idea because of the inefficiency.
"By using underground DC transmission, these losses can be cut in half."
Why do you think so? AC won out over DC precisely because it could be transmitted far more efficiently than DC.
The voltage of AC can easily be increased or decreased with transformers. This is important since the amount of power lost to wire resistance goes down as voltage goes up.
The voltage is increased when being transmitted over long distances and then decreased to a relatively safe level before being delivered to the customer.
Changing the voltage of DC power is much much harder than changing the voltage of AC power.
This ability to use transformers with AC power is a huge factor in why AC is so widely used.
You could argue that power companies have done the analysis on this type of distribution and have found the lost revenue created with an overhead solution fall well below the costs of an underground solution (which will still have losses anyway).
Until you create a hard and fast monetary saving, power distribution wont move from what they currently have. It's like buying a hybrid car, it might take 10 years to pay off the extra cost and then after that you will sell it off/the power cells have worn out and need replacing. In this case, energy generation techniques get cheaper/more efficient, we have more urban sprawl (so more power lines required), trying to maintain it, etc. It has to be a shorter term saving, otherwise it's not worth the risk (no one will invest in it) for something this scale.
The best solution to this problem is to decentralise power generation or create cheaper (both production cost and environmental) energy sources instead.
I have power lines in my alley. They provide for great squirrel watching.