Recent comments in /f/newhampshire

movdqa t1_j5r67ln wrote

Do you have to rake the roof? The storms so far this year have been relatively minor and temps are warm enough so that you have to decide on whether or not you need to do it. I do it regularly on a second-story roof. I bought two roof rakes that have three sections each so that I can use four sections to reach the roof. This allows me to do about 3 feet off the bottom of the roof. There are windows above the roof and I can shovel the snow off the upper roof. This is all a fair amount of work as you can imagine though my son will help out with the shoveling if I ask; and sometimes he volunteers. We just got a new roof so I don't know if we need to do this but I'm just used to doing it.

Most of my neighbors don't clear their roofs and I assume that they don't have problems, I do it because of past problems with ice dams. Are you doing this because you have had leaks or ice dams in the past? If so, it's generally a judgement call - will it melt on its own without having to rake it - and I make this calculation every storm. If it's 1-3 inches and we have 1-2 days of above-freezing temperatures, then I may not bother.

The only other approaches that I've heard of are to get a metal roof or a metal roof bottom with heating elements to melt ice dams.

We only have to do one roof because the roof is not steeply angled which means that snow and ice don't fall off quickly. The other roofs are at a steeper angle and don't have leak issues.

7

warpedaeroplane t1_j5r3faq wrote

It’s because if you schedule a call with them to come out and do clearing work they schedule it and the guys work it their regular day making straight time. When it falls down in the storm cause they didn’t do it the week before the storm, the guys go out and do the same shit after it’s already fallen + the repair that’s necessitated by not doing it and make overtime.

There’s a reason.

6

Able_Cunngham603 t1_j5r2k95 wrote

This type of answer over-simplifies the problem. Burying thousands of miles of power lines would not be a cheap endeavor in the best of circumstances (and NH taxpayers are notoriously cheap).

And trying to do this in NH would be even more complicated (/expensive) than in other areas. We do live in the Granite State after all.

Carving out that much Granite would upset the Lizardfolk—and that’s not a problem any of us want.

3

warren_stupidity t1_j5qy7sj wrote

Well ok I'm sure there may be geographical features in some areas that prohibit underground conduit, but for example, my road is pretty much exactly the same region as my house, and all the new-ish (like within the last 30-40 years) houses here have underground connected to the poles on the street. We have a lot of long driveways too. Most of the rest of my town is pretty much the same, except the newer developments and clusters all have underground systems for the whole area. So, in summary, sure they could bury a lot, perhaps almost all of the local distribution systems, they just won't because it doesn't make short term financial sense.

0

vexingsilence t1_j5qufgy wrote

Yea, right. They'd just jack our rates even more. Probably end up in court since the utilities won't look kindly on Eversource trying to pass on some of the costs. And it's not the same phone/cable company throughout the state, to complicate things further.

Or.. you know, just leave the wires on the poles and call it done.

1

AKBigDaddy t1_j5qtu89 wrote

> But then the cable/phone/internet and in some cases fire alarm are all hanging on the existing poles.

They solved this problem elsewhere... they buried those too, and is also a great way to defray the costs so it's not 100% on the electric company. Maybe ask ATT/comcast to dip into their portion of the $1,000,000,000,000 (yes, 1 TRILLION DOLLARS) that has been given to internet providers to increase broadband availability that never got used appropriately to cover some of the cost?

0