wrote:
>On Jun 11, 4:31 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
>> wrote:
>> Why do you remain silent about these "several" phantom homes that are
>> more than 98% self-sufficient? They would almost have to be
>> all-electric homes, and there are damned few of those off-grid. Other
>> than mine, where are they?
> One is in Wedderburne, another two in Trentham, another is at MacIntyre.
Now we're finally getting somewhere! <snorf> Please describe these
setups. I've never heard of a single off-grid place that didn't have
some backup power, so I'd like to know how much they use, and why you
haven't been critical of them for needing it. And considering who's
telling us about them, I would like to see some proof that they even
exist. All-electric off-grid homes are very rare and notable. Surely
at least one of them is described on its own web site, or the
installer's web site, or in a news story. And I'd like to know why you
believe that the owners made the effort to be truly self-sufficient,
given that you claim to be able to accomplish the same thing by using
accounting alone.
>> >> >My current usage without vehicles is 17638MJ/year.
>> >> That's 13.4kWh per day. Yet only 18 months ago
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/249f789c542aa226
>> >> you said it was nearly 5 times as much! So now we're supposed to
>> >> believe that the total miraculously became 3 times less than the
>> >> wood-burning portion alone used to be. Does the secret involve
>> >> magic-mass again?
>> >I just keep getting more efficient with my energy use.
>> How the hell could you have gone from 66kWh per day to 13 in 18
>> months? It's a ludicrous proposition, which is why you'll keep
>> repeating it without any explanation. Surely you're proud of this
>> dramatic alleged reduction. Then why are you keeping the details a
>> secret?
>One figure is with vehicles and the other is with out vehicles.
Huh? You wrote: "My current usage >without vehicles< is 17638MJ/year".
That is quite clear, and I don't see you admitting that it's wrong. So
the new number *without vehicles* is 13.4kWh per day, versus 66kWhr
per day 18 months ago
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/249f789c542aa226 .
I ask again, how could the total have possibly become 3 times less
than the wood burning used to be?
> Living
>where I do means that vehicles use a lot of energy.
I removed the vehicle consumption from the old numbers already, and
you said that the new number also doesn't include the vehicles. Why
must you keep trying to confuse the issue by mentioning vehicles
again?
> Then there is the
>fact that the new fridge is much more efficient than the old one
>having twice the insulation, The use of thirty odd led lamps also
>helps improve the efficiency in lighting.
A small fridge's total use is ~1kWh per day. Your lighting is part of
your solar production, which is also ~1kWh per day. If you eliminated
both of those *entirely*, then the reduction would be ~2 kWh per day.
So where did the other 52kWh per day reduction come from?
BTW, you should be including the cost of the new fridge in any energy
calculations, since propane-fueled fridges are famous for being
expensive to buy, run, and repair. I tell people in my area to switch
to electric ones as soon as they can manage it. And I use examples
like yours to demonstrate how some choices are a predictable false
economy.
>Anybody, with the exception of you, can reduce there energy use.
My energy use goes up and down as technology and our use of it
changes. For example, recently I rewired the arrays to a higher
voltage for a minor production increase. At about the same I changed
the HTPC setup to slightly reduce its consumption. Such things are
routine and hardly worth mentioning, but the level of reduction you've
announced here is truly astonishing by comparison. It's also
impossible without a dramatic lifestyle change.
>>you can't just write a new number, you have to make physical
>> changes. In your case they'd need to be drastic, and yet you haven't
>> mentioned any changes at all! 18 months ago you wrote that the wood
>> burning alone was the equivalent of 44kWh per day. Now you say that
>> the total including the wood burning is only 13kWh per day. Who do you
>> expect to believe that?
>Yes, and that wood stove has ceased being used.
18 months ago you wrote that wood burning accounted for an average of
44kwh per day of your consumption. As I recall, you have both a
wood-burning stove and a wood-burning fireplace. If you quit using the
stove, then it's fair to assume that you're using more propane for
cooking. Regardless, the lion's share of the wood burning must still
remain for space heating with the fireplace. So how can the total now
be 13 when the wood burning alone must still be, say, 35, and the
propane increased to compensate? Or were you trying to fool readers
into believing that the wood-burning had been eliminated entirely?
>>>My
>> >electricity production provides 97.6% of my electrical needs
>> No, that's pure BS. Here
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/249f789c542aa226
>> you said that you run a generator 80 minutes per week. Since you need
>> a generator for every load over a few hundred watts, nobody believed
>> that 80 minutes was enough. But even so, 80 minutes at 1kW is 13% of
>> your total electrical energy, and that's before your backup use or any
>> other generator-supplied needs is counted. Your accounting is just
>> plain silly.
>As pointed out several time already, my generator is not connected to
>the house.
No, you have one generator connected to the house, and another that's
in the "workshop" "cloths washing" room. <chuckle> *Both* are required
for routine operation of your home. What is the point of using
semantics and phony accounting to pretend that the fuel for one
generator, plus all the other fuel, should be ignored? If you have $0
divided between 2 pockets, and you spend $, do you still have $0 on
planet ghio?
> It never has been and there is no place to connect it to my
>house.
Have you heard of *wire*? My backup generator is also outside my
house. It's connected to the batteries using, wait for it... wire!
Almost all the loads are powered by the inverters, so when the
generator is running it's either charging batteries or powering the
inverters/loads. Other than extreme pigheadedness and poverty, there's
no reason you couldn't do the same thing. That way you'd reap an
improvement in both efficiency and convenience.
>I meet 97.6% of my electrical needs with solar.
That's just your cockamamie accounting. Your electrical needs are only
a tiny percentage of your total needs, and 97% of very little turns
out to be <2% of the total, or <9% if anyone reading believes Baghdad
Bob or George Ghio.
>And, yes I do use gas and wood as well. Just like several thousands of
>other people around the world.
So what? Fuel burning is *not* what got you into trouble here. It was
your brain dead and hypocritical assertion that a 98% self-sufficient
percentage and a very small amount of backup fuel burning
occasionally, is somehow worse than a 1.8% self-sufficiency percentage
and a lot of fuel burning every day.
>> >I have reduced my energy use. end of story.
>> So you say, but given the outrageousness of the alleged reduction, and
>> your history of posting numbers that you make up as you go along, who
>> would be foolish enough to believe your latest story?
>It's true though.
Then show us how. Post the updated version of what you posted here
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/249f789c542aa226 .
That way we can see the exact details of how you went from 66kWh down
to 13.
>> >> > You claim to be able to produce
>> >> >up to 30kWhs a day
>> >> Who cares what I claim? Do the math, 30kWh is the max that 2kW of
>> >> tracked PV and 1kW of wind can generate on a good day on my site.
>> >It is also a 300,000 Ah over production
>> No, that would be 20kWh per day. The only way we could have that level
>> of overproduction is if we had full sun every day *and* high winds 24
>> hours per day. That scenario exists nowhere but in your defective
>> mind. But if we did have that much overproduction, it would be enough
>> to power an electric car! Only you are wacked enough to claim that
>> something like that would be a deficiency.
>Ah, no. I subtracted what you could be reasonably be expected to use
>from your batteries base on you claim of two days autonomy.
Batteries have nothing to do with your BS. Before one can have an
average of 20kWh of excess, they need 20kWh to start with. Here's your
chance to show us your deeziner scils - use a location of Kingman AZ
for the insolation and wind number, with 2kW of single-axis tracked PV
and 1kW of wind power. Should only take you a few minutes. I'd enjoy
seeing you use your usual weasel techniques to exaggerate my
production. LOL
>> >Yes excess energy is always unavoidable to some extent, but only you
>> >would raise that to a level that would run a small town.
>> LOL So not only do we have 20kWh per day excess, and not only is
>> that a problem, but it's also enough to run a small town! A small town
>> of nutty "power consultants" perhaps....
>Poetic license.
OK then, you are to writing what dogshit is to fine wine.
>> >> BTW, if you had any experience with the combination of sun and wind
>> >> power, then you'd know that it's the solar controller that cuts back
>> >> first, so there isn't necessarily any wind energy dumped as heat. In
>> >> fact, on windy days I frequently see only a couple of kWhrs on the
>> >> MX60 daily production log, coupled with many hours of float time.
>> >Oh, so that 300,000 Ah over production is some how dissipated with out
>> >producing heat. When can we expect to see your dissertation on your
>> >news laws for the conservation of energy?
>> Can you not read? The only heat-producing regulator is on the turbine.
>> But when there's excess wind power, the solar controller shuts down
>> the PV output, and therefore the turbine doesn't need much or any
>> regulating. When there's wind but no sun, there's also little need for
>> turbine regulating. The main time that the wind power is regulated is
>> when we wake up to both wind and sun after a windy night. In that
>> case, the batteries are already full, and if we don't have
>> discretionary loads to absorb the excess, then it gets dumped. So
>> what?
>So the panels get cold when the regulator stops charging.
What the hell are you talking about? "Cold" panels? "The" regulator?
Great writing there, Shakespeare! Try re-reading my description above.
It's quite clear. Better yet, why don't you go out and visit some
places that have both solar and wind power, so that you don't have to
get schooled on the basics in public.
>> >300,000Ahs excess
>> It's hilarious that you made up that number and keep claiming that I
>> have an excess that's 17 times more than your daily production. In
>> what reality would that make you appear competent?
>You have already accepted this number when you said, and this is the
>full and correct quote:
>"Who cares what I claim? Do the math, 30kWh is the max that 2kW of
> tracked PV and 1kW of wind can generate on a good day on my site."
No, that clearly says "max", and "on a good day". A good day is full
sun and continuous high wind. No sensible person with alternative
energy experience would imagine that such conditions exist every day,
or even a majority of days.
>> >Your generator is connected to your house.
>> Yes, that's how it's normally done. That way the generator can be used
>> to best advantage.
>Who says thats how it's normally done. The truth is that some do so
>and other don't.
We're not talking about your dopey camping-level "deezines". These
days most home-sized off-grid setups use inverter-chargers. When are
you going to get out and lay your hands on one of those for the first
time, so that you can relate to and understand what others discuss
here?
>> >My generator is not connected to my house and as a point of fact there
>> >is no place to connect my generator to my house.
>> No, you have one generator connected to the house for backup, and
>> another to power any load over a few hundred watts, but only if those
>> loads are outside the house where your "cloths washing" is.
>Ok I have a battery charger(DC) connected to the house system, this
>has never been denied. I certainly don't pull 5000Ahs out of it every
>year.
<sigh>
>I also have a generator(AC) in the workshop. It is not connected to
>the house and and there is no provision to connect it to the house.
>And yes the laundry is done in the workshop, so what.
As I said, if your deezine had been better, then the backup generator
and the aux generator would be one and the same as so many others are.
That would generally also require an inverter (or an inverter-charger)
large enough to power all major loads. Which in turn would have
provided a way to make use of normal excess energy that you're now
allegedly throwing away. Why would you burn fuel for a fire to cook a
piece of toast, or start a generator to do laundry, if there's already
sufficient energy untapped? How were you able to run a water line to
the "cloths washing" room, yet pretend that running a wire is somehow
impossible? If you need to run say, a side grinder in the workshop,
then why start a generator to do that when the home's inverter could
power it?
>Seems to me that you have at least three generators. Well if you were
>telling the truth.
I could have a hundred generators, none of them will help your case.
I have one (1) fixed 2kW generator for home power backup. It's
outdoors in an enclosure
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/genny.jpg , and the controls are
indoors.
I also have a 6.5kW portable generator used mostly for mobile welding.
It's mounted on a custom cart
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/generator/yamahafull.jpg
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/generator/yamahain.jpg
which allow me to load it into a car or truck easily by myself. That
cart lives indoors, but I can quickly plumb the exhaust outdoors, and
connect the generator to both inverter-chargers in case of backup
generator failure. Which would turn the portable generator into a
backup to the backup.
And I have a light-weight portable generator
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/generator/colemannormal.jpg for
remote operation of small loads. In a pinch that generator can also be
hooked to an external exhaust, or can be rolled outdoors and connected
to an exterior input to a single inverter-charger. Either way it can
serve as a backup to the backup to the backup if needed.
Here, let me save you some time...
Weasel ghio's next post: "So you admit to needing three generators to
power your home!" Too funny.
>> There are two ways you could improve your place to compete with the
>> level of self-sufficiency that "several" people you know <snorf> have
>> achieved.
>> 1. Install tracking and more PV and wind power and solar water heating
>> and ground source heat pumps. Sound familiar? But since you haven't
>> done any of that after all these years, then you'll find it easier
>> to...
>Oh, I see. I should have more production than I can store.
No, you should strive for solar and wind production that comes as
close to 100% of your needs as possible. That's what I do, and that's
what you say that "several" people you know do as well. So how is it
that you've gone over 2 decades without doing the same, or even
trying?
>> 2. Reduce your total daily load to 1.2kWh per day, by employing the
>> same technique you used to reduce it from 66 to 13kWh. Since it took
>> 18 months to make the reductions so far, it should only take another 4
>> months to go the rest of the way!
>I am constantly working to reduce my energy use, as pointed out above.
If <snorf> we believe what you've written, then you had a 350Wh per
day system for a dozen or more years, which you upgraded to 1.2kWh a
few years ago to accommodate consumption of 66kWh per day. Then you
dropped to a fifth of that consumption only recently. That's hardly a
"constant reduction". Good for you if you ever improve your production
enough to match your consumption. Until then, you have a loooooong way
to go, and a lot more fuel to buy. I trust that it's becoming an ever
larger part of your budget, and I hope that you think of me every time
you pay for it, and every time you think about how much better off
you'd be now if you'd made changes a long time ago.
>Now this thread has run it's course.
Why has it run "it's" course Mr. Edatir? Because you realized that the
more you rite, the more obvious your hypocrisy becomes? Or because you
hate compulsively contributing fresh wisdumb to
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/solar100.htm? Or is it because you're
too busy earning $50 an hour <guffaw> to talk about the fabulous 1kWh
per day "solar powered" home?
>Bye Rimmer
If only. Unfortunately, you'll be back with more wisdumb and riteeng
"expertise" again and again.
Wayne
googlebots see here ---> george ghio, bealiba, Renegade writing (sic)
XML site map
>> wrote:
>> Why do you remain silent about these "several" phantom homes that are
>> more than 98% self-sufficient? They would almost have to be
>> all-electric homes, and there are damned few of those off-grid. Other
>> than mine, where are they?
> One is in Wedderburne, another two in Trentham, another is at MacIntyre.