|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > February 2006 > The Grid
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Alan Connor 2006-02-17, 6:21 pm |
| Greetings to what looks like a sane newsgroup. Not many left.
Congradulations.
Allow me to run this by you.
The Grid
A complex network of transport paths (materials[agricultural,
silvicultural,mineral,water,waste,manufactured,people], energy
and data.
Everything else depends on the materials grid. This is the
foundation of the Grid.
If someone can't transport wires or solar panels to an enduser,
then they aren't going to have any electricity.
If the minerals needed to make the wires or solar panels couldn't
get to the smelters, refineries and factories, there wouldn't be
any wires or solar panels.
The Grid doesn't have any areas that are capable of independence.
By definition. It connects interdependent industries and
endusers.
If you are off the Grid, then it doesn't matter whether the Grid
exists or not.
If the collapse of the grid would render your current lifestyle
unsustainable, then you aren't off the Grid.
The only people I know who are actually off the Grid rely on
methane or woodgas, used directly for heat and light because
they can maintain it when the Grid goes down.
Someone dependent on solar panels will be without power if
someone with a rifle on a nearby ridge decides to shoot it for
fun or harassment. Or a windstorm trashes it. Or it is struck by
lightning...
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
Other URLs of possible interest in my headers.
| |
|
|
Alan Connor wrote:
> Greetings to what looks like a sane newsgroup. Not many left.
> Congradulations.
>
> Allow me to run this by you.
Actually, technically, it sounds more like "allow me to rant on you".
There didn't seem to be a point. What were you reaching for?
> The Grid
> Everything else depends on the materials grid. This is the
> foundation of the Grid.
And actually, so is the Grid itself. It needs maintenance as well.
Funny ole world, ain't it?
> If the minerals needed to make the wires or solar panels couldn't
> get to the smelters, refineries and factories, there wouldn't be
> any wires or solar panels.
Nor grid transformers, simple telephone poles, or switchgear.
> The Grid doesn't have any areas that are capable of independence.
> By definition. It connects interdependent industries and
> endusers.
Take a good look at hydroelectricity, like that which serves much of
Quebec. The community the small dam is located within can run quite
nicely, even if the larger grid is down.
> If you are off the Grid, then it doesn't matter whether the Grid
> exists or not.
Well, we (off grid homes) still watch the TV that is powered by the
grid, and use telephones that are usually centrally powered by the
grid, and have internet connections (like this one) that are usually
grid powered.
> If the collapse of the grid would render your current lifestyle
> unsustainable, then you aren't off the Grid.
If the grid collapses, things will get interesting for everybody. On
grid folks will be... "inconvenienced" as well as being cold, and in
the dark. Off gridders will be inconvenienced but will be warm and see
it coming ;-).
> The only people I know who are actually off the Grid rely on
> methane or woodgas, used directly for heat and light because
> they can maintain it when the Grid goes down.
Direct wood burning for heat, PV and wind for lights/appliances/water
pumping...
> Someone dependent on solar panels will be without power if
> someone with a rifle on a nearby ridge decides to shoot it for
> fun or harassment. Or a windstorm trashes it. Or it is struck by
> lightning...
Tell me how that wouldn't be the case to a grid substation. At least an
off grid home would have a few days to fix it, because we run on
battery banks. That's why we have light, TV, and internet, at night
;-).
DJ
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-02-17, 9:21 pm |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in
<1140218242.213681.267370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "DJ"
wrote:
Hello DJ. Thanks for responding.
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>
> Actually, technically, it sounds more like "allow me to rant on
> you". There didn't seem to be a point. What were you reaching
> for?
>
Technical accuracy in terminology.
Seems like that's pretty obvious.
<snip>
>
>
> Take a good look at hydroelectricity, like that which serves
> much of Quebec. The community the small dam is located within
> can run quite nicely, even if the larger grid is down.
I doubt it. I doubt that all of the support industries needed to
maintain and repair those hydroelectric installations and their
extent of the power grid exist within its boundaries.
And all of _their_ support industries...
Plus, that sub-power-grid section could _still_ go down,
obviously.
>
>
> Well, we (off grid homes) still watch the TV that is powered by
> the grid, and use telephones that are usually centrally powered
> by the grid, and have internet connections (like this one) that
> are usually grid powered.
And all the stuff you use all of your electricity for couldn't
have been produced or delivered to you, and can't be maintained
without the Grid.
>
>
> If the grid collapses, things will get interesting for
> everybody. On grid folks will be... "inconvenienced" as
> well as being cold, and in the dark. Off gridders will be
> inconvenienced but will be warm and see it coming ;-).
No. Off gridders, REAL off gridders, will not be inconvenienced,
by definition.
People that are dependent on it are not off grid.
2+2=4
>
>
> Direct wood burning for heat, PV and wind for
> lights/appliances/water pumping...
When the grid goes down, you will have X days until you no
longer have electricity and therefore no light or water. _If_
you don't run out of light bulbs or the pump doesn't break down
permanently before then. Or a forest fire forces you to move...
Better than nothing, but if the grid doesn't come up in time
you will discover just how dependent you are on it.
Especially if it never comes back up.
[color=darkred]
>
> Tell me how that wouldn't be the case to a grid substation.
I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.
> At
> least an off grid home would have a few days to fix it, because
> we run on battery banks. That's why we have light, TV, and
> internet, at night ;-).
>
> DJ
>
There's no doubt that a place with the ability to supply its own
electricity for (possibly) a few years after the grid goes down
is a lot better off than one that is identical otherwise but
lacks such amenities.
Not my point.
Let's call a spade a spade and an inverter an inverter.
Being off the grid and having grid-dependent power sources
that can last for a while after it goes down are not the same
thing. At ALL.
You can't even say that you are off the power grid, because
it is needed to mine, create and deliver your equipment.
Such distinctions aren't important, perhaps, to hobbyists.
You can afford to play games with words (maybe).
But for someone who is preparing for the fall of civilization
(They all fall, don't they?), such sloppy thinking will not
do.
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
Other URLs of possible interest in my headers.
| |
|
|
Alan Connor wrote:
> Hello DJ. Thanks for responding.
Starting to regret it. I'm beginning to think you're a loon ;-).
> And all the stuff you use all of your electricity for couldn't
> have been produced or delivered to you, and can't be maintained
> without the Grid.
Agreed. My life will get alot simpler if the grid, and by Grid, you
seem to really mean organized society, fails.
Then no one is. No one, especially, that is reading this. No one
outside of a cave, really.
[color=darkred]
> No. Off gridders, REAL off gridders, will not be inconvenienced,
> by definition.
Unless you live in a hand built home, wearing the skins of animals you
kill, eshew every store-bought thing no matter how simple, there are no
REAL off gridders, by your definition.
> When the grid goes down, you will have X days until you no
> longer have electricity and therefore no light or water.
Years, and perhaps generations. My windmill, to use an example, was
built in the 50s, and is still running fine. If it lasts another 50
years, I'll be past caring.
And I was smart enough to buy land with a ten-acre spring fed lake in
the front yard. Water will never be a problem.
> Better than nothing, but if the grid doesn't come up in time
> you will discover just how dependent you are on it.
Dependant, no. I'm not dependant on it. I'll miss the internet,
certainly, but my life will go on quite nicely. It'll just be alot more
interesting.
> Especially if it never comes back up.
So some kind of a Peak Oil Mad Max Scenario? Bring it on, baby. I'm a
millwright. That's a thousand year old trade that will make me royalty
in the new world order ;-).
>
> I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.
You claim an alternative energy system is vunerable to weather or
vandalism. And I tell you that the grid is even more vunerable.
> You can't even say that you are off the power grid, because
> it is needed to mine, create and deliver your equipment.
But it's already here. So my equipment was ONCE dependant on the grid
to be created, but is no longer. True, a bit of an ungrateful position,
but there it is.
> Such distinctions aren't important, perhaps, to hobbyists.
Well, I live in a hand-built log home. I have a renewable power system
I built and maintain myself that is incidentally powering this internet
connection ;-). I know how to preserve food by canning, including meat,
safely. I make maple syrup by hand every spring. I know what wild
plants that grow on my 100 acre property are safe to eat, and which
have medicinal qualities. I hunt on my own land, use water from the
lake in my front yard. I occasionally raise and slaughter my own
livestock.
Which one of us is the hobbist again?
> You can afford to play games with words (maybe).
>
> But for someone who is preparing for the fall of civilization
> (They all fall, don't they?), such sloppy thinking will not
> do.
Well then, oh optomist, what would you suggest? Cutting the umbilical
cord now? What kind of an idiot wouldn't use the grid (in your
definition, actually society) when available, all the while gaining
knowledge and resources for the day, possibly, when it becomes less
"user firiendly" ?
DJ
| |
| ronwagn 2006-02-18, 1:21 am |
| It is far easier to destroy a grid than all the individual power plants
that replace it. Distributed energy is by its very nature far more
secure, and resistant to monopolistic pricing. It can use multiple fuel
sources as well. The very talk of it throws fear into the monopolists
in this country and the Middle East. Witness recent comments by Exxon
and Arabian spokesmen.
Ron Wagner
DJ wrote:
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
> Actually, technically, it sounds more like "allow me to rant on you".
> There didn't seem to be a point. What were you reaching for?
>
>
>
>
> And actually, so is the Grid itself. It needs maintenance as well.
> Funny ole world, ain't it?
>
>
> Nor grid transformers, simple telephone poles, or switchgear.
>
>
> Take a good look at hydroelectricity, like that which serves much of
> Quebec. The community the small dam is located within can run quite
> nicely, even if the larger grid is down.
>
>
> Well, we (off grid homes) still watch the TV that is powered by the
> grid, and use telephones that are usually centrally powered by the
> grid, and have internet connections (like this one) that are usually
> grid powered.
>
>
> If the grid collapses, things will get interesting for everybody. On
> grid folks will be... "inconvenienced" as well as being cold, and in
> the dark. Off gridders will be inconvenienced but will be warm and see
> it coming ;-).
>
>
> Direct wood burning for heat, PV and wind for lights/appliances/water
> pumping...
>
>
> Tell me how that wouldn't be the case to a grid substation. At least an
> off grid home would have a few days to fix it, because we run on
> battery banks. That's why we have light, TV, and internet, at night
> ;-).
>
> DJ
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-02-18, 5:21 am |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in
<1140231594.115558.148060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "DJ"
wrote:
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>
> Starting to regret it. I'm beginning to think you're a loon
> ;-).
On what basis?
>
>
> Agreed. My life will get alot simpler if the grid, and by Grid,
> you seem to really mean organized society, fails.
>
>
> Then no one is. No one, especially, that is reading this. No
> one outside of a cave, really.
There about the 20-50,000,000 (no one knows exactly, for obvious reasons) living on the planet at present who live completely
independently of this civilization.
To the best of my knowledge, very few of them live in caves.
>
>
> Unless you live in a hand built home,
People have been doing that for a _very_ long time.
> wearing the skins of
> animals you kill,
People have been weaving for 10's of thousands of years. Many
Native American tribes were skillful weavers. Indigenous fiber plants can be found in any ecosystem that human beings can live
independently in.
In the West, Nettle and Flax, two of the world's best fiber
plants, are native and widespread.
> eshew every store-bought thing no matter how
> simple,
Considering that there haven't been any stores for most of
the people living on the planet during most of humankind's
history, that obviously is not a real problem.
> there are no REAL off gridders, by your definition.
Once again: There are 10,s of millions of _known_ true off
gridders on the planet right now.
Since it is _very_ difficult to track true off gridders that
don't want to be tracked, there is no telling how many there
really are, or even what regions and areas they can be found
in.
>
>
> Years, and perhaps generations. My windmill, to use an example,
> was built in the 50s, and is still running fine. If it lasts
> another 50 years, I'll be past caring. And I was smart enough
> to buy land with a ten-acre spring fed lake in the front
> yard. Water will never be a problem.
If this civilization goes down, you will not be able to assume
that you are just going to be able to kick back and live on that
property unmolested by people or nature for the next 50 years.
It is obvious to me and to anyone reading this, that your
homestead is a _plum_ target for organized bandits and refugees.
And can be seen for miles even without the smoke that you put
out.
You do _not_ have the industrial framework/skills, on-site, to
maintain electrical light for 50 years.
And you could _not_ count on being able to scavenge or trade
for what you will need.
Every single scrap of salvage will be claimed by one individual
or group or another shortly after the Collapse.
And any kind of travel will be hazardous in the extreme and will
leave your homestead understaffed. It probably is already.
If there's a big bad storm that knocks out the Grid in your
area for an extended period, you'll be sitting pretty _if_
there is law enforcement still functioning within your
area or brought in from without.
If you think that having a few guns and a few mean dogs
will make up for the lack of said law enforcement, you
are fooling yourself. Again.
<snip>
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
Other URLs of possible interest in my headers.
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-02-18, 5:21 am |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in
<1140238100.386890.112030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"ronwagn" wrote:
> It is far easier to destroy a grid than all the individual
> power plants that replace it.
Not if those individual plants can't be maintained/replaced
without that grid supplying spare parts and replacement units.
> Distributed energy is by its
> very nature far more secure, and resistant to monopolistic
> pricing.
Not if said monoplies control the industries that create and
provide spare parts for said individual power plants. And their
transportation.
> It can use multiple fuel sources as well. The very
> talk of it throws fear into the monopolists in this country and
> the Middle East. Witness recent comments by Exxon and Arabian
> spokesmen.
>
> Ron Wagner
>
If it was _real_ distributed production, with each individual
power plant dependent only on local resources, then they'd
be afraid of it.
Now, they are just making pocket change indulging your delusions
of independence.
I know a homestead where the people use woodgas (directly) to
light their buildings and heat water and fuel their forge and
cook on and heat their buildings.
The wood comes from coppices on their property and the generators
and pipes are made from on-site clay.
It's all done with the simplest of handtools.
_That's_ real distributed production.
And that's being truly off the grid.
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
Other URLs of possible interest in my headers.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-02-18, 10:21 am |
| Alan Connor wrote:
> When the grid goes down, you will have X days until you no
> longer have electricity and therefore no light or water. _If_
> you don't run out of light bulbs or the pump doesn't break down
> permanently before then. Or a forest fire forces you to move...
>
> Better than nothing, but if the grid doesn't come up in time
> you will discover just how dependent you are on it.
You're still ranting without a point. When the grid goes down, we'll _all_
end up without any electrical systems at some point. Anyone who's ever
read Science Fiction has come across the post-apocalyptic scenarios where a
few small groups maintain themselves by mining the cities, but until they
rebuild their own industry, they're just another collapsing civilization.
People with methane digesters are in the same boat (actually worse than the
hypothetical small town running off a local dam - as a small town might
manage the resources to rebuild a turbine).
>
> Let's call a spade a spade and an inverter an inverter.
>
> Being off the grid and having grid-dependent power sources
> that can last for a while after it goes down are not the same
> thing. At ALL.
>
> You can't even say that you are off the power grid, because
> it is needed to mine, create and deliver your equipment.
>
> Such distinctions aren't important, perhaps, to hobbyists.
> You can afford to play games with words (maybe).
>
> But for someone who is preparing for the fall of civilization
> (They all fall, don't they?), such sloppy thinking will not
> do.
Anyone preparing for the fall of civilization (ours has gone on longer than
many we know of, so it's ripe ...) has to count on much lower tech than a
methane digester.
--
derek
| |
|
| In article <1140231594.115558.148060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"DJ" <dj_macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>
> Starting to regret it. I'm beginning to think you're a loon ;-).
What gave you the first, clue, here?
I figure this Dufus is a refugee from the Survivalist Black Heliocopter
Crowd, who got kicked out from there, cause' he did a Deepend Dive
into a Mud Puddle, Head First.....
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-02-20, 7:21 am |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in <5dljc3-ii6.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca>,
"Derek Broughton" wrote:
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>
> You're still ranting without a point.
No I'm not.
> When the grid goes
> down, we'll _all_ end up without any electrical systems at
> some point.
No kidding. But we won't all be without light and heat.
> Anyone who's ever read Science Fiction has come
> across the post-apocalyptic scenarios where a few small groups
> maintain themselves by mining the cities, but until they
> rebuild their own industry, they're just another collapsing
> civilization. People with methane digesters are in the same
> boat (actually worse than the hypothetical small town running
> off a local dam - as a small town might manage the resources to
> rebuild a turbine).
>
People using methane or woodgas directly for light and heat can
do it forever.
With nothing from the outside.
>
> Anyone preparing for the fall of civilization (ours has gone on
> longer than many we know of, so it's ripe ...) has to count on
> much lower tech than a methane digester. -- derek
Hard to imagine anything technologically simpler than a methane
digester: Fill anything that will hold liguids 2/3 full of water
and throw in nitrogenous organic matter (green legumes work well)
and cover it and keep the temp betweem 85 and a 105 degrees and
you'll make methane (CH4/natural gas).
(Because of the temperature requirements, woodgas is better in
temperate and colder climates.)
You can do it in your kitchen with a gallon jug. Use clover from
your lawn. Put a balloon over the mouth to catch the methane.
Put it on top of your water heater or someplace else warm.
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
see also: links.html and newsfilter.html
Other URLs of possible interest in my headers.
|
|
|
|
|