Eric Murray wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 06:54:56PM -0800, Steven Shipley wrote:
>
> > I decided against the generator since I have very reliable electrical
> > service. If I bought a generator a couple of years ago, for example,
> > it would still be in the box unused. But I've lost power for as much
> > as two days.
>
> I don't understand those two sentences- you have a very reliable
> electrical service, yet you have been without power for as much as two days?
It's so reliable I don't remember the date of the last failure (GT 3
years?)
The problem in Seattle is usually snow. We see it so seldom there's
no incentive to prepare. I think I've driven in snow twice in 5 years
and there was no power failure. So the generator isn't getting used.
But every 10 or 20 years we get whacked and nobody's prepared. In the
case
of the two day failure, we had a big snow, a bunch of lines down, and
the
utility was unable to respond to the calls. The crews are pretty good
at
getting the power back on but I was affected by a localized failure and
couldn't get through to report it.
So I don't really need a generator that will get 15 hours usage in 15
years.
That's why I want to use natural gas and some basic device to burn it
and utilise it. Open a valve and the energy is available. The basic
natural gas appliance needs no maintenance. The generator is going to
need some care and feeding even when it's waiting to be used.
<snip>
>
> We bought a backup generator when we moved up here. It's not permanantly
> wired to the house, I have to haul it out and plug it in when I need it.
You need a generator and I would too if I was in your situation. But
I'll accept the deficit in my emergency power plan. I want to be able
to turn a valve and strike a match so I can brew a cup of instant and
read a book until civilization as I know it returns.
Steve Shipley
Seattle, WA
|