[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
grow

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 1463)
Message
File  []
close
house-stream-800.jpg
146314631463
>> No. 1463 Anonymous
5th December 2010
Sunday 1:25 pm
1463 Renewable Energy
Lets say I have a stream next to my house.

How difficult would it be to use the power of the stream to power my house? How would I go about doing this?

This seems a good idea if I wanted to avoid paying electricity proces but please note that I have no idea about hydro-electricity so maybe it would not be economical to buy a turbine and all the other paraphernalia.

I have heard that other renewable methods such as solar are generally not cost-effective.

Thanks.
Expand all images.
>> No. 1464 Anonymous
5th December 2010
Sunday 9:22 pm
1464 spacer
>>1463 I've often thought about this. I reckon, a diesel generator dynamo could be powered by a water wheel if you get the gear ratios right (fast enough spin the dynamo wheel at the required speed). You could attach it to a windmill quite easily too.
>> No. 1465 Anonymous
5th December 2010
Sunday 9:22 pm
1465 spacer
You could probably pick up a knackered diesel generator with a good dynamo for scrap money too.
>> No. 1468 Anonymous
11th December 2010
Saturday 2:37 am
1468 spacer
>>1463
I've been told many times by ecofags that stream-power is best-power. Depends on how much head of water you have and if you can divert it, but its way better than all the other methods we have at our disposal. Do it.
>> No. 1471 Anonymous
13th December 2010
Monday 9:34 pm
1471 spacer
>>1468
But if too many people use water wheels the stream will lose too much of its energy and stop flowing. How is that renewable?
>> No. 1472 Anonymous
13th December 2010
Monday 9:55 pm
1472 spacer
>>1471

Then all you need to do is add more wheels and it will flow backwards! We can benefit from the energy going both ways. Perpetual energy using a green source!
>> No. 1479 Anonymous
9th January 2011
Sunday 1:01 am
1479 spacer
>>1472
Troll logic
>> No. 1480 Anonymous
9th January 2011
Sunday 1:51 am
1480 spacer
On this subject, I just bought a house, and I've been thinking about installing a wind turbine. Apparently they cost shitloads but you sell electricity back to the National Grid so it could pay for itself. Anyone know anything about this?
>> No. 1481 Anonymous
9th January 2011
Sunday 7:06 pm
1481 spacer
>>1480 Not only that but the government pays you to generate your own electricity (that you use and don't sell). This is because every watt you generate for yourself is a watt that they didn't have to build extra infrastructure to create, given increasing power usage. However, the best thing you can do in your house is make sure it is as efficient as possible. Make sure insulation is up to standard, bulbs are low energy, south facing windows are not wasted etc...

Good luck getting permission for a turbine in an urban area, unless it's one of those strange flat ones. However, solar panels are easy and generally pay for themselves in 5 years (and you still own the panels which have a value).

If I was moving I'd think about a wood burner or biomass boiler. These are getting cheaper all the time.
>> No. 1482 Anonymous
9th January 2011
Sunday 11:58 pm
1482 spacer
>>1481
The Energy Saving Trust's website tells me windspeeds in my area are about 2.3m/s, which is below the recommended minimum of 5m/s, so I wouldn't get any electricity out of it anyway.

Isn't solar shite? Whenever I see those little solar lamps you put in your garden, they charge up all day, and then give off hardly any light at nighttime. They're just dots of light rather than lamps.
>> No. 1483 Anonymous
10th January 2011
Monday 12:02 am
1483 spacer
Solar can work quite well if you get enough panels (like covering the roof).

Wind often needs high windspeeds (and often high masts as a result), but there are forms that can work fine with lower speeds, there's been some development for these conditions.

It can be rather expensive either way.
>> No. 1488 Anonymous
12th January 2011
Wednesday 4:09 pm
1488 spacer
>>1481
I've little knowledge on solar, but think that in principle, it's a jolly good thing.
However, I can tell you that, where woodburners are concerned, it can be well worth spending a bit more money than is necessary, for a good product. A high-ish quality stove is a wonderful thing. Look for one with double glazing in the door; it's fantastic. I have an old model of the Woodwarm Fireview which includes this, and is generally very agreeable.
Also, note that the heat will not readily dissipate throughout any great expanse of house without a boiler.
Before committing, consider:
Wood is expensive. It's a great fuel, both in terms of the environment and in terms of generating minimal ash, which is then good for the garden, however it's going to cost unless you can get it free from somewhere. I've heard of people relying on driftwood, if that's convenient for you?
>> No. 1490 Anonymous
13th January 2011
Thursday 8:59 am
1490 spacer

Dessin_Sentierseng[1].jpg
149014901490
>>1463
You're probably looking at a run-of-the-river 'micro-hydro' installation (as opposed to a storage type).

The major drawback of this type of power is that it is seasonal - as the stream waxes and wanes, so will your power. Not a problem if you are also connected to the grid, but if not you will need to consider storage.

Try these, OP, and good luck to you:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/explained/hydro/what/what.aspx

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generate-your-own-energy/Hydroelectricity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_hydro

http://www.homebrewhydro.com/

http://www.green-trust.org/wordpress/2010/07/31/micro-hydro-the-other-renewable-power-source/
>> No. 1495 Anonymous
15th January 2011
Saturday 1:40 pm
1495 spacer
I am in the market for a stove. I was wanting one that could be used for cooking and heating water, rather than one of those modern glass jobbies that only do heating.

Was thinking a multi-fuel range might be the best option. Anyone here got recommendations in this area?

I've seen some nice looking ones made in the UK that can be assembled and disassembled.
>> No. 1496 Anonymous
15th January 2011
Saturday 3:25 pm
1496 spacer
>>1495
When i was a lad we had a rayburn in the house, its fuel was wood.
>> No. 1503 Anonymous
24th January 2011
Monday 2:59 pm
1503 spacer
>>1496

Informative!

Semi-modern designs are rather good now. The main thing is to avoid getting one of those cheap B&B or Homebase pot ones that are more for show in a garden than actually using for any practical purpose.
>> No. 1504 Anonymous
24th January 2011
Monday 3:53 pm
1504 spacer
>>1503
He's right, you know. Aga have spun all of their solid-fuel work out to Rayburn now, so, if OP's got the money, Rayburn it is. I was looking at Rangemaster, too, but they spelt 'epitome' 'epitomy' so I left their site with all possible haste.
Also, OP, have a tall house; the higher the top of the chimney is above the fire, the better it burns.
>> No. 1505 Anonymous
25th January 2011
Tuesday 8:41 am
1505 spacer
>>1504

It's not the kind I was thinking of. I was thinking of the kind that can be installed or moved when needed or desired, rather than a permanent replacement for my current kitchen appliances.
>> No. 1543 Anonymous
30th January 2011
Sunday 6:22 pm
1543 spacer
>>1505
A multifuel stove that's going to provide what you want(heating, water, cooking) simply isn't available in a portable easy to move form. if you want something like that I suggest you fashion something out of a metal bin and some copper pipe.
>> No. 1547 Anonymous
1st February 2011
Tuesday 7:30 am
1547 spacer
>>1543
>>if you want something like that I suggest you fashion something out of a metal bin and some copper pipe.

I'd suggest /uhu/ but wouldn't want to risk someone blowing themselves up, especially not somone in a sub-shed bunker.
>> No. 1548 Anonymous
1st February 2011
Tuesday 8:23 am
1548 spacer
>>1547

I wonder if one of these home made stoves would be safe in a shed bunker? /uhu/ might be the right place to ask.
>> No. 1549 Anonymous
2nd February 2011
Wednesday 9:02 am
1549 spacer
Can you use a paraffin heater safely indoors or will oxygen supply and carbon monoxide be a danger factor?
>> No. 1550 Anonymous
2nd February 2011
Wednesday 5:43 pm
1550 spacer
>>1549
Of course oxygen supply will matter, but in what context are we talking? I can imagine that in a post-apocalyptic bunker ten feet underground, oxygen might be problematic, but in a house it wouldn't be so very different from a gas stove.
>> No. 1551 Anonymous
3rd February 2011
Thursday 2:43 pm
1551 spacer
>>1550

Actually there are warnings against using certain kinds of fuels in the home. Modern centrally heated and insulated homes are very different to the homes of old that had gaps in the doors and windows and big chimneys.
>> No. 1570 Anonymous
7th February 2011
Monday 7:54 am
1570 spacer
>>1547
Cut big hole in the side of the bin, keep the piece of metal for creating a door, cut some small pipe holes in the sides(one top, one bottom), get some copper pipe and coil it around inside the fire box so that it'll thermosyphon. flatten out the lid(for kettles and things) and cut a hole in it.
Make the connections fairly quick fitting and you have a horribly inefficient stove, with some science added to this you could probably make something much more efficient but it'll work and it won't explode regardless of what you do.

>>1550
With todays modern houses and energy saving retrofits the oxygen supply IS SOMETHING you'll need to look into, A house a few roads away almost killed themselves because they decided to botch open up the old open fire for comfort and it had negative pressure so it filled the nice sealed insulated house with carbon monoxide very quickly.
You need airbricks by law in rooms with fires or an external air pipe for it, on that note here's what happens when you fuck up by not doing it properly and to code
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273882/Teenager-dies-summerhouse-wood-burning-stove-leaks-carbon-monoxide.html
>> No. 1571 Anonymous
7th February 2011
Monday 8:21 am
1571 spacer
>>1570

Thank you for that. Both the design idea and the warning. Important to be aware of these things. It could be all too easy to blunder in and have tragic consequences.
>> No. 1573 Anonymous
7th February 2011
Monday 11:39 am
1573 spacer
>>1570
> Declan arrived home at 3.15am on Saturday, February 6, after a night out with friends.
> He was found at 8.45am with white foam around his nostrils and mouth.
So how do we know he didn't just do a Jimi Hendrix?

Seems odd that he felt fine with it before yet took a fatal dose of CO in 5 hours.
>> No. 1576 Anonymous
7th February 2011
Monday 12:03 pm
1576 spacer
>>1573

He could have had a window open or been in and out enough for it not go get him.
>> No. 1577 Anonymous
7th February 2011
Monday 10:54 pm
1577 spacer
>>1570

So far as airbricks are concerned, the risk is minimal in older houses, and the law is as may be. I'm not callously endangering the lives of everyone here; I myself have lived in a few old houses with one or more solid-fuel stoves, without airbricks, and been fine, and known enough other people do the same to have a fair sample size. Also, if the room fills up with smoke, probably best get out for the time being, but don't assume the worst; yet again, this is fine in the vast majority of cases (i.e. all of my encounters).
Drawing a line on date, I think that, essentially, you're fine if stoves were the norm when the house was built. I would also say that draughtier houses from the sixties, seventies and possibly later, which weren't built to modern energy-saving standards (although, as >>1570 point out, beware the retro-fit) would probably be fine, but don't take that as gospel. If that does apply to you, do other research.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password