my win11 disk shit the bed and I had the local PC guys put in a new one (wiping all my data). they gave me the the machine back with a local 'user1' admin account. so that's me now. user1. hi.
Being from LA, I am used to a water system that works without needing power. I think most of CA is like that. It was a surprise to lose the water back east when the power went out during a storm.
The only places I've heard of losing water during power outages are houses that use a private well (no power, no well pump), which would be the case anywhere. Municipal water systems may or may not use power to provide pressure, but are going to have generator power outside of the most severe outages.
I wonder if this was in an apartment building. We owned a condo in a 5 story (4+1) apartment building and because it was taller than the San Jose water system was built for, our building needed (electric) pumps to provide water pressure to the building (there were tanks on the roof). If we lost power, then we lost water.
Now that we have moved to a 2 floor detached home (also in San Jose) we do not have that issue, and everything is gravity fed.
Usually these relatively low height kinds of top-tank systems lose water for the entire apartment building, because there's one pump to raise the water to the tank, which then passively provides the pressure (usually through pressure regulators at each floor if I remember right).
Larger buildings tend to have multiple independent systems
We happened to live on the top floor, so I don't have personal experience for the lower floors, but the communication on the (non official) group chat for the building always hinted that any water outages (we had a few non-power issues with the pumps as well) applied to to the whole building. But thinking back that could be an unfounded assumption.
Some of the aqueducts that deliver some of the water to LA do rely on pumping. But, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, which is the subject of this post, does not. The LA Aqueduct is entirely gravity driven, and under normal circumstances it is sufficient to supply LA's water needs.
Another nitpick is that California's various aqueducts are net producers of electricity (i.e., after accounting for pumping), so, while some of them do rely on electricity, they do not require an external source of power to operate.
It depends where you are. Most cities in the Northeast you are correct. But coastal areas, big swaths of New Jersey and Long Island IIRC are definitely dependent on power. Towns with water towers usually pump it from the ground.
Alot of suburbs that can't or won't hook into city supplies will sometimes need more active measures to filter their water as well.
I know NYC doesn't treat their water at all, but LA doesn't either?
My city runs on surface water, so we have treatment and then pump to storage tanks. You would have to be out for quite a while to run the city out of water, though - the tanks are large.
LA definitely treats the water. Both the surface water before consumption (I'd be surprised if any city doesn't do this) and the wastewater, for reclamation for nonportable use like irrigation, and for recycling back into the general clean water supply.
The aqueduct water is specifically purified by the Los Angeles Aqueduct Filtration Plant. That plant is gravity fed, but it doesn't operate without power.
LA just has the advantage of having mountains in the city, so it's cheaper building more elevated water storage so the capacity lasts longer during power interruptions (which are also not as common or extended as they are in the east). They will still eventually run out if they're not replenished by powered pumps.
Where did you get that idea about NYC water being untreated? NYC treats its water. Chlorine is added if and when needed. Testing stations exist to evaluate water quality all around the boroughs, etc.
You can't have a city of millions of people and have the water be potable from the tap without testing and treatment
> New York City’s water (including drinking water) is unfiltered, making it the largest unfiltered water system in the country. Were New York to begin filtering its water, it would cost the city approximately 1 million dollars per day to operate the filtration plant.
They have hundreds of sampling stations to check daily.
He was talking about the drinking water that comes from the faucet, not the sewage.
The untreated NYC water has tiny crustaceans in it, which make it not Kosher, which is why thee bagels from a Jewish deli in NYC are so good. Go figure.
DoorDash has these little cute robots doing delivery. I often seen them followed by a person on a e-bike. This has been going on for more than a year. My recent Lyft driver said one reason is because the Waymo's ignore the other robot and kill them and the bike ensures they don't.
Or instead of paying money for a car that still fills up slower than a gas one, has all the extra issues that come with EVs, and hope that there is charging infrastructure in my area, I could just buy any ice car made in the last 35+ years.
Extra issues? Or "different" issues? The jury is still out on whether ICEVs or EVs are better overall, but despite being a less mature technology my EV is the best car I've owned so far. Seems to me that EVs win pretty easily in the long run.
Doesn't that describe most Toyotas, EV or not? You buy a Toyota because you expect it to last forever (or because it has low running costs because it has great resale value because it lasts forever).
You want a Supra to drive much better than fine. But if you're in the market for a Corolla, "fine" might be better than some of the cars you're comparing against.
That used to be the case, but modern Toyotas have a lot of problems with their engines. This doesn't inspire confidence in the brand's overall quality.
Add the fact that EVs are a lot simpler, and I don't really see the reasons to pay the Toyota premium. Perhaps less depreciation?
/s
reply