Nullhof

Where are you and where are you going?
KevinW
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:45 am

Post by KevinW »

Here's my philosophical discrepancy, which I offer in the spirit of constructive criticism.
I think I share your ideals of self-sufficiency, environmentalism, and economic efficiency. I've window shopped almost all of the sub-systems on your list, and my goal is to eventually have a mini-homestead with a lot of them. However, I don't share the goal of driving external inputs to zero. I want to minimize them, but I am satisfied with making them very small. My goal might be a "epsilon-hof" in your terminology.
The reason is that there are a few devices that contribute a lot to my quality of life and can only be manufactured economically in a factory. Three examples that come to mind are eyeglasses, computer processors, and internal combustion engines. Yes, it's possible to fabricate those from scratch, but that is at least as expensive, and more work, than buying cheap finished products on the open market. These are capital-intensive processes where economies of scale and specialization of labor are a big win.
A friend drove this point home one day when I was explaining, in great technical detail, my scheme of retrofitting an industrial diesel engine into a sedan and converting it to biodiesel. His response was "you know, it would be a lot easier to just buy an old Mercedes or ride a bike."
Since you're an engineer you can probably appreciate the huge difference between "zero defects" and "a statistically very small number of defects." I imagine you have a good reason to pick "zero" as your goal. What is it?


Steve Austin
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:17 am

Post by Steve Austin »

The difference between a Nullhof and an Epsilonhof is in my view just one of conceptual presentation. The engineer in me knows quite well that zero is the ideal, not the expected target. In mathematical interval notation, I suppose the Nullhof would be "...0)" (exclusive of zero) and not "...0]" (inclusive of zero).
Psychologically though, I find it more comforting to have an unachievable goal, as long as getting close (and closer) yields acceptable benefits. The achievable goal has the let down of "what next?"
I concur with you regarding the fabrication of the higher technology. DIY in that case is both harder and more expensive, but it also *might* be more fun. You get the right two or more people tinkering, and it could be a lot of fun, and could possibly crack open other lines of inquiry that had not been visible prior to the project.
I'd like to hear more about your biodiesel conversion idea (on- or off-forum). Riding a bike is certainly easier, and is of course fun, but a biodiesel conversion project could be even more fun. Just trying to not be bored here.... ;-)
But to close the loop on my reply to your post, "to zero" I suppose I could/should clarify as "toward zero", meaning as close to zero as is comfortable (in one's own relative sense). I see this "margin to zero" as the energetic analogue to investing's "margin of safety". One's energetic security improves as one's dependency on off-site, non-renewables decreases.
EDIT for minor wording


Steve Austin
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:17 am

Post by Steve Austin »

In another thread, I believe it was S who gave the URL to the best wind locations in North America.
This led me to wonder about the best total harvestable renewable energy by location. It would be a map or list that accounts for good wind, good solar, and good farming (both crops and animals). Has anyone here done this work? Or seen it tabulated somewhere? Call it the Nullhof Index.


jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Post by jacob »

Here's the list of windpower capacity by state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power ... l_capacity
Wind farms are certainly something that could be organized in a investment trust or partnership like fashion. This is a fairly common way of doing it in Denmark since modern windmills are now so big so as to be out of range for individuals to purchase.


S
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:02 pm

Post by S »

With windfarms, can you still use the land around the windmills for other productive purposes such as livestock grazing? Seems like a good double use of the land if so.


jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Post by jacob »

Yes you can. The primary footprint of a windmill is access roads. Especially for the large ones (!MW+), these can be substantial. Windmills are thus often located right next to [established] roadsides.


Steve Austin
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:17 am

Post by Steve Austin »

Thanks for the windpower data. I found a Wind GIS utility here, which I have not drilled into yet:
http://windenergy.ornl.gov/
And one other Nullhof-related link for today (a high tech angle, or is that "big chem"?), personalized energy systems:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 090110.php


KevinW
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:45 am

Post by KevinW »

I'll start another thread for the biodiesel topic. If we put everyone else to sleep we can take it off-forum :) .


AnneBentham
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:15 am

Post by AnneBentham »

Is anybody still working on Nullhof? What would be the differences between this and already established groups like Open Source Ecology?


Steve Austin
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:17 am

Post by Steve Austin »

Nullhof is still gestating, have been corresponding intermittently (albeit lightly) on it. Hope to post a non-trivial update here in the late Winter / early Spring.
Regarding OSE, I am certainly inspired by their bootstrapping and DIY tech emphasis. I don't think it would do OSE justice to describe differences between it and a proto-embryonic idea encoded in a forum thread. ;-)


Post Reply