Anecdotally, everyone I know in the US who has a generator didn’t get it because of random power outages, but because of natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and blizzards.
At least in my area (NJ) we lose power around a week on a good year, approx 2 weeks out on a bad year. Outages usually caused by trees falling during thunderstorm/wind, sometimes snow, not hurricane. Oh and drunks slamming into poles. Everyone has generators or other forms of backup power in my area.
But problem in recent years was the dead ash trees from emerald ash borer, they took a few years to fully die and weaken but now they just collapse into lines on a good wind gust.
Localities that have their own utilities never go down (Madison, NJ), my area is covered by Firstenergy that cheaps out and keeps only a skeleton crew in NJ, so when stuff like the poles snap at end of my driveway it takes 3-4 days to send crews from texas or ohio to replace it.
> At least in my area (NJ) we lose power around a week on a good year, approx 2 weeks out on a bad year. Outages usually caused by trees falling during thunderstorm/wind, sometimes snow, not hurricane. Oh and drunks slamming into poles. Everyone has generators or other forms of backup power in my area.
I had no idea your basic infrastructure was so bad.
Why not demand buried cables? Trees can't fall on them, drunk drivers can't knock them down.
On the other hand, here in Europe I've never had any problems remotely so common and severe, not in any place I lived, even with overhead power lines, including the tiny remote (by local standards) Welsh hamlet: https://maps.app.goo.gl/AtGFM9C5xJ6GrMJz5?g_st=com.google.ma...
I'm not an American, but Australia has a comparable number of power outages. A big factor is cost, and population density is what causes cost to be a concern. The EU has a population density that's three times higher than the US; underground lines are three times more expensive than overhead.
Australia is of course ten times less dense than the US, comparable to Idaho, but we have a unique combination of moderately dense land in the east and south west plus shockingly sparse areas with little to no infrastructure at all.
Likewise Australia, the outback is about 70%-85%-ish of the country depending who I ask, with about 607k people in it, so if the Aboriginal Australians were to secede with it, the rest suddenly gets x3-x6 the population density with no actual change to their experiences.
I think what would be useful is a histogram of population densities, or for example a percentile based metric: population density covering 99/95% of population.
I'm thinking something like "From the average person's perspective, how many people are within 100m, 500m, 1km, 5km, 10km, and 50km?"
The questions that seem to matter, and for which population density is a proxy, are: how crowded does it feel, and how easy is it to get to the socioeconomic advantages of being near other people (infrastructure, commuting, shopping, community sports, faith buildings, pubs, etc.)?
Those sorts of natural disasters are happening over once a year in many metropolitan areas these days, including places where they used to be incredibly rare.
