Wayne,
>I don't have an alternative for your biofuel scenario, and I don't
>think about off-grid living in terms of saving the world. From what
>little I've heard so far, I expect you to have your hands full with
>basic needs. As I said previously, the most common failure mode I've
>seen with off-gridders is overreaching.
Ok, my fuel picture is completed, so I'll spend some time on your
other points, although I mostly agree them. In my view there are three
reasons to be off-grid:
1) Political, (green, hug a tree, save the world)
2) Economic (save money over the long term)
3) Security (energy independence)
I'm more about points 2 & 3 than 1, but I think all are perfectly
valid, although if for any reason someone else is heading in this
direction there doesn't seem to be a clear path, so if someone reads
any advice from me that they see value in, I don't mind helping out.
The two good things about free advice are firstly it's free and
secondly people are free to ignore it.
>You might consider planning for minimal use of vehicles and machines
>rather than try to grow and manufacture fuel for them. For example, if
>you move somewhere that's 50 miles from town, and organize to only
>make 2 trips per month, and get 25 miles per gallon at $ per gallon,
>then your vehicle fuel needs are $00 per year, which would hardly pay
>for a single new tractor tire, much less all the other things that
>will be needed for a biofuel operation.
For the short term I agree with your point. I've settled in on three
home energy systems to be built over a 4-5 year period in this order:
1) Solar heating (combined water a space)
2) Wind-turbine (electricity)
3) Bio-fuel (ethanol)
I don't expect ethanol production to be ramped up to serve all my
needs in 4 years, just the foundation to build on for the future. I
think one personal point is appropriate here, I like building stuff, I
don't like golf, gin rummy or pass-times, building stuff both gives me
something to do and most of the time leaves me something useful.
>Likewise, I think you'd be wise to seek the most moderate climate.
>You'll be starting at a huge disadvantage if you choose a cold
>location.
I see your point may have some advantages for bio (fuel, food), but
what about electricity, the only option for that plan that I can see
is photo-voltaic and the conservation that goes with it. I could go
the moderate climate-PV route and handle any sporadic larger power
equipment requirements with a backup generator which I'll need for
either option, but after studying both options for a variety of
big-picture reasons my first choice is still the big wind location,
although the moderate climate-PV route is a backup if I can't find a
suitable big wind location.
> Douglas was as overconfident as several people I've seen fail to make
>it off-grid.
Again we're back to "if not this, then what", I think the chances of
failure in hoping that we be able to afford the future domino effects
of the double "supply and demand" whammy the will come is also a risk.
I could fail either trying to avoid the problem by going off-grid OR
fail trying ignore this problem by purchasing a place in one of those
template retirement villages in the Ozarks.
I don't want to be perceived as just a "sky is falling guy", I like
building, growing, and designing stuff and don't really care for
pass-times and I've had an interest in alternative energies since the
80's. I'm not saying that I can't fail, but I kind of doubt that the
people you saw fail spent two years of 8 hour days researching the
options and designing a plan BEFORE they tried going off-grid. In my
opinion the better someone understands an issue, the more likely they
are to succeed at it.
>This site http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen/Wind_Turbines_Home.htm
Thanks for the link, I'll see what there.
>Something else you should consider: areas with really good wind power
>aren't places many are willing to live. My own area is considerably
>less windy than the Dakotas, and yet many people talk about the wind
>here as if it's a hated enemy. It does wear on you if you have to
>spend a lot of time outdoors. My own site is windier than the general
>area.
>I don't find it and issue because I work mostly indoors, and can usually
>be flexible about when I work outdoors.
For me your second point answers the first.
>I don't believe in praying. I think what you'll find with some
>experience is what most farmers find - that they can earn more at a
>job than the crops are worth. I don't see how computer modeling gives
>you a leg up over them, but I won't mind being proved wrong if that
>happens.
This a bit confusing, I'm not looking to do farming for a living (I do
computing for that) and I'm not sure term "farming" is the best
description, a more accurate description would be a home garden for
food (which I want to do) with a 1 to 2 acre feed-crop for bio-fuel
looking at a very modest 350-450 gallon yeild (.5 to .25 of publish
yields).
Computer modeling was done on house-hold heat-loss, solar heating,
electricity requirements, wind-turbine electricity production given a
location's resource, electricity storage, Heating Degree Days (HDD),
Cooling DD, Growing DD and bio-fuel feed crops that grow well with the
GDD for a particular location, along with some basic cost analyst for
the same.
>As much as it must seem like I'm only out to discourage you, that's
>not the case. I'm trying to make sure you understand that if you're
>overreaching, you won't be the first or the last.
I've been on the net since before it was widely accessible and have
developed a sense and have a proven strategy for trolls, IF I thought
you where trolling me this conversation would have never taken place
and you'd be in a killfile, I don't waste time on non-sense, but
opening a plan to scrutiny kicks up pit-falls that I may not have
thought of while there still time for adjustments or change. I think a
little caution is appropriate not to only focus on the pit-falls
without some attention to the merits and other options to any plan.
Curbie
wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hydrogen is a very "light" gas (small molecules) that will seep
>>>through most materials; it is also mildly corrosive which will slowly
>>>destroy some materials over time. All this can be avoided by the
>>>selective use of materials,
>>
>> These posts might interest you
>>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/070c39b51f5781d9?dmode=source
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.engr/msg/78030946a70d0871?dmode=source .
>>
>> The links to the AWEA group no longer work, but hopefully the content
>> is still archived somewhere.
>>
>> Wayne
>Very nice web link with nothing in it. You're getting funnier these days,
>you complain about other people's post, now look at yourself....LOL.
Gosh, a nitwit using an anonymous host. Whatever could it mean.
My post was quite clear - if anyone wants to read the material I
described, they'll have to dig it up somewhere.
BTW, the reason that the poster originally quit talking about his very
interesting project is because of A-hole responses like yours.
Wayne
>think about off-grid living in terms of saving the world. From what
>little I've heard so far, I expect you to have your hands full with
>basic needs. As I said previously, the most common failure mode I've
>seen with off-gridders is overreaching.