|WikiProject Architecture||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Energy||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Mobility with solar energy cheaper
I just try to create a project for solar mobility. In all development countries, 2 stroke engine scooters are wide spread. They are cheap to purchase, but expensive in operation using 3 to 4 litre gasoline for 100km. In addition, they use also expensive 2 stroke engine lubrication oil.
This extrem inefficient 2 stroke engine scooters could be replaced with electric scooters using only 3 to 4 kWh on 100km. So priacticall, 1 litre gasoline is replaced by 1 kWh electric power.
The extrem inefficiency of the 2 stroke scooter engines makes the biggest CO2 saving per Watt peak installed photovoltaic possible.
In Germany, one Watt peak photovoltaic produces about 1 kWh per year replacing around 0,35 kg coal in a coal power plant. In Africa, one Watt peak photovoltaic for mobility can produce 1,5 kWh per year replacing 1,5 litre gasoline for 2 stroke engine scooters.
I just try to make a CO2 saving certificats project out of it. A set containing a stationary photovoltaic system, buffer batteries, battery charger and an electric scooter to replace a 2 stroke engine scooter is something high efficient to reduce CO2 emission.
--Pege.founder 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Merger with autonomous building
- Oppose - As the original author of the Off the Grid entry, I do not believe it should be merged into "Autonomous Building" or if they are merged the term "Off the Grid" should be the final term. "Off the Grid" is more widely accepted in the common vernacular whereas the term Autonomous Building is a term of art more commonly used by architectural and construction professionals. While I think a link to "Autonomous Building" is warranted as a related subject, the term "Off the Grid" is more descriptive and more commonly recognized.
- Autonomous building is an idea which incorporates open source / autonomous ideas within organization of both the proponents and the concepts generated
- Agree - I think a merger is a good idea as it appears the only difference between the two subjects are their titles.Glippy00 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - While they do cover the same topic, I agree that they are from totally different perspectives; the homestead and the multinational corporation... I'm not really sure what to do here - Jack · talk · 14:13, Sunday, 18 February 2007
Oppose: Autonomous Building has a great many facets, of which, the rather colloquial "off the grid" is just one. Autonomous design is as much about energy minimisation techniques, primarily passive rather than active systems. It also covers issues such as construction and material modularity and other waste minimisation strategies. Autonomous building needs to be considered much more holistically, than just off the grid. eg. I can use a fossil fuel driven electric generator, and produce copious amounts of dirty electricity "off the grid". An autonomous design, places greater emphasis on reducing such needs.
OpposeNeutral. Different topics with some overlap. —Pengo 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware this was "Vermont culture", especially since the articel itself said NOTHING about the relation. 18.104.22.168 11:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Off Grid Living (spam)
I have removed the link to off-grid-living.com. The site presents itself as a source of information, but I believe its motives are more commercial. Note that in order to get the information, you have to sign up for a "newsletter", and it makes repeated claims of being "free". In my experience, the more often something claims to be "free", the less free it is.
I'm hoping someone else wll take a look at the edits made by this user and the web site it points to, and either confirm my interpretation (I'll revert the other edits) or point out why I'm wrong (I'll restore the link & remove my spam warning from the user's talk page).
+ No responses. I have posted on WP:AN
- Aside from the google ads, which are not an automatic thumbs-down for sites, it doesn't look commercial to me. But I'm not strongly advocating inclusion, I just don't see that it's obviously spam. Saying that because they use the word 'free' a lot it must be commercial isn't a good enough reason to remove, IMO. But that isn't a reason for inclusion, either. Anchoress 05:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I subscribed to their newsletter after posting the foregoing, and just recently received a completely bogus spammy 'update' inviting me to go in on a speculative stock purchase with them and '100 friends'. So, I disavow my previous skepticism, it's spam! Anchoress 02:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Not all well pumps are submersible.
Many shallow well pumps are not submersible. There are on the surface for easier servicing. Granted very few well are shallow wells, but I think it would be best to not make global statements to which there are exceptions, without pointing out the exceptions. Jaerik 20:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
There are no references or citations for this article, so I'm adding an "unreferenced" tag. Rosen's book is mentioned within the article, in a limited context, so perhaps "unref" isn't strictly true, but it's not well cited. -Agyle 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the sections on "Fresh water requirements," "Alternative energy sources," and "Waste disposal." It's been a month, no references are available, and some of the information seems dubious. E.g., while four people could use 150-300 gallons of water per day, the rule of thumb I've heard for moderate climate requirements is a gallon per person per day. In the northern US, people I know who carried water home didn't use much more than that except for occasional baths. (That's anecdotal, but the unreferenced claims are similarly unreliable, and neither should be used here unless cited). In "alternative energy sources," diesel and propane are fossil fuels, not alternative or renewable energy sources. Also, remember the article is about off the grid buildings; explaining renewable energy isn't necessary, and even referenced data on human water requirements may be unnecessarily detailed. -Agyle 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that "off the grid" refers to buildings, homes, or communities either not connected to a power grid, or more commonly, not connected to power, sewer, or water supplies. While people living off-grid may use more renewable sources for energy than on-gridders, or even use exclusively renewable sources, I'd not previously heard of renewables as part of the definition, as in this article's first sentence. Propane (a.k.a. liquified petroleum gas) cooking, heating and lighting, kerosene lanterns, and gas or diesel generators are examples of common non-renewable energy sources in what I'd consider off-grid living. Three mainstream examples where "off the grid" is used to describe people who have use non-renewable energy sources for at least occasional use:
- HAVENS; Life, Unplugged: Surviving 'Off the Grid', New York Times, 2002.]
- Batteries included: Enclave of adventurous families takes advantage of solar power, but it's hardly free, San Diego Union-Tribune, 2001.
- Off the grid or on, solar and wind power gain, USA Today, 2006.
-Agyle 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Off-grid simply means not on the grid. It does not mean New Age or eco-nut, as the article implies. Most of the world are still "off-grid"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Proposal: move to "off-grid"
The terms off-grid and off-the-grid are often used interchangeably, but actually are needed to denote two separate subjects. The term off-the-grid is increasingly being used to refer to people who have dropped out of sight of the official "system" of databases, identity cards, the IRS etc. Author John Twelve Hawks (not his real name)claims to live this way, and it is a fast-growing theme in popular literature, film and TV.
The term off-grid is also a fast growing phenomenon (see my recent edit on the article page.)And it is NOT used to mean opting out of society, but specifically refers to the process of living without mains utilities.
I therefore propose that the existing article be moved in its entirety to a new subject called off-grid, and the term off-the-grid be reserved for information about the problems and practice of becoming invisible in the surveillance society.
--Nick Rosen 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that off-grid and off-the-grid are used interchangably, but I think that's appropriate; they seem functionally equivalent to me. They're the hyphenated adjective or adverb form of the phrase "off the grid," and in that use the "the" is optional. Examples:
- "John's house is off the grid"
- "John's house is off-grid" (same meaning)
- "John has an off-the-grid house" (same meaning)
- "John has an off-grid house" (same meaning)
- (Or as adverb phrases....) "John is living off the grid"
- "John is living off-grid"
- "John's off-the-grid living is interesting"
- I think if you want to write an article about people living off the grid, in the sense of untraceable, you should use the off the grid disambiguation page to create an article based on that name. Like Off the grid (lifestyle), or Off the grid (privacy) to clarify that it's not the power-grid-free lifestyle. I really wouldn't use "off-the-grid," and I'm coming to think even this article shouldn't use that, as it's just a form of "off the grid," but that's another matter. I'd note that John Conner, in Terminator 3, said "I live off the grid," seemingly without hyphens, and a quick google of John Twelve Hawks suggests he uses it that way too. -Agyle 08:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Further reading is in most articles, I can't see any reason why you wouldn't include it here. It would be highly useful to anyone researching this subject. An author is already named anyway, so more shouldn't be an issue. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Old car batteries as storage?
I was skeptical that old car batteries would be reused to store energy, as it's common knowledge to anyone who's set up a solar panel system for their radio hut/hunting shack that deep cycle batteries are used instead because they're more efficient and they don't explode. The link given to support this is filled with commenter's saying just that. Car batteries are not reused for electrical storage, and are not used as a storage source for energy farms. I would suggest finding another article that mentions using car batteries for this purpose or deleting that sentence. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)