[edmundsauto]

I think it's more about the long tail of situations that I'm not really able to imagine, or feasible emergencies but ones where my assumptions aren't valid. So not about a specific situation, more on principle that I want to keep my "get the heck out of dodge" energy store separate from my "hunker down" energy store.

I admit it's less efficient to have 2 energy stores, but given we're already discussing potentially life threatening situations, I'm not really looking to optimize for anything except having as many resources as feasible on hand.

[Dylan16807]

> I'm not really looking to optimize for anything except having as many resources as feasible on hand.

Money is limited, so sharing resources between situations lets you be prepared for more situations.

[edmundsauto]

Agreed, there are tradeoffs. But from a principled perspective I recognize the risk in having to choose between escape and home power. Adverse events often stack in unexpected ways at the worst time.

[bruckie]

I get your point, but let's assume that you had separate resources for escape and home power, and then you needed home power for an extended period. Wouldn't you like to have the option to be able to use your escape resources to power your home?

[edmundsauto]

I think so, but the tail risk impact is still worrisome. Guess it also depends where you live - I’m in a fair weather state, so powering my home is not a survival issue for the most part.

If I lived in eg Texas, I’d maybe have a BEV that could power my home and a separate vehicle for long range travel. Bit of a luxury.