Make Liberalism Great Again

I've decided to NOT wait until Spring but instead get things going ASAP. (Reading through too many grow threads & ogling far too many pics has got me chomping at the bit.)

I'm taking a few hours tomorrow to clear a nice patch of the largest closet/creepy room, and I'll follow that up with a trip to Home Depot on Fri/Sat. Bare bones, one pot, enough for myself, smallest light possible, bag seed, etc.

Big_Lou said:

I've decided to NOT wait until Spring but instead get things going ASAP. (Reading through too many grow threads & ogling far too many pics has got me chomping at the bit.)

I'm taking a few hours tomorrow to clear a nice patch of the largest closet/creepy room, and I'll follow that up with a trip to Home Depot on Fri/Sat. Bare bones, one pot, enough for myself, smallest light possible, bag seed, etc.

View attachment 3889990

Click to expand...

we all started somewhere...

doublejj said:

we all started somewhere...

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

Did you know that half of all electricity produced is lost on the way to the customer?

Click to expand...

Not trolling but that needs amplified.
Electrical generation has low efficiency depending upon prime mover. Hydro's very efficient, Nat Gas is quite good, oil/steam is low.
Electrical transmission/transformation/distribution/ and final transformation to house voltage is amazingly efficient. So much so that long before utilities approach 90% power factor they're correcting. Line loss is real but manageable.

ttystikk said:

None of the new tech addresses the longevity and the danger of the waste products.

If the aim is to save the planet for our progeny, it seems counterproductive to pollute it forever.

Click to expand...

This is true. Totally agree with you that unless/until waste storage issues are resolved, nuclear power is not worth the risk.

Fogdog said:

This is true. Totally agree with you that unless/until waste storage issues are resolved, nuclear power is not worth the risk.

Click to expand...

Believe me, we do not have those solutions.

ArcticGranite said:

Not trolling but that needs amplified.
Electrical generation has low efficiency depending upon prime mover. Hydro's very efficient, Nat Gas is quite good, oil/steam is low.
Electrical transmission/transformation/distribution/ and final transformation to house voltage is amazingly efficient. So much so that long before utilities approach 90% power factor they're correcting. Line loss is real but manageable.

Click to expand...

Our grid is a fucking disaster.

90%?

Come on now...

Why do you think we run 110v and every other modern country runs 220v?

SneekyNinja said:

Our grid is a fucking disaster.

90%?

Come on now...

Why do you think we run 110v and every other modern country runs 220v?

Click to expand...

Power in power out. Fact is transmission and distribution are uber efficient. We run 120/240 btw as one of the secondary voltages. It's not 110.

ttystikk said:

Believe me, we do not have those solutions.

Click to expand...

I believe you. I also believe that nobody has come up with an acceptable plan to meet US energy needs.

Big_Lou said:

I've decided to NOT wait until Spring but instead get things going ASAP. (Reading through too many grow threads & ogling far too many pics has got me chomping at the bit.)

I'm taking a few hours tomorrow to clear a nice patch of the largest closet/creepy room, and I'll follow that up with a trip to Home Depot on Fri/Sat. Bare bones, one pot, enough for myself, smallest light possible, bag seed, etc.

View attachment 3889990

Click to expand...

You better start a thread so we can follow your grow...no matter how shitty it turns out.
Just kidding on the shitty.
Weed seems to taste better and smoke better when you grow it yourself. When I get these kids out my home. I will grow again

SneekyNinja said:

Our grid is a fucking disaster.

90%?

Come on now...

Why do you think we run 110v and every other modern country runs 220v?

Click to expand...

This isn't the only article that backs up the >90% efficiency claim for electricity distribution:
http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/

Where the real inefficiency is in conversion into electricity. Coal, petroleum and nuclear efficiency is about 38% efficient. Natural gas electricity generation is about 45% efficient.. Fuel cells that convert NG to electricity are 47% efficient (http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/why-fuelcell-energy/benefits/efficient/) -- this for larger installations to run commercial operations. So, big possible gains here but still fossil fuels. Maybe some day methane from sustainable farming. But it would take a huge area to grow enough stock for that kind of fuel to make a dent in our fossil fuel consumption.

Fogdog said:

I believe you. I also believe that nobody has come up with an acceptable plan to meet US energy needs.

Click to expand...

Fuel cells are farther along than you may think. Google's biggest server farm runs on them. They are nearly commercially ready, they just aren't properly sized for the average home.

I believe they're the new tech for energy, cultivation and heating one's home. Fuel cells can do all the above simultaneously. Because they don't just waste the cogenerated heat but put it to use, they reduce total carbon footprints far more than traditional power plants.

Since they use natural gas, they emit far less CO2 than other fuels and very little at all in terms of noxious chemicals or heavy metals, all potential problems of using heavier fuels. This adds to their safety at home and their utility in fighting climate change.

And of course we know what to do with the CO2 around here! Do it for a greenhouse of any size and now you're recapturing at least part of your own carbon emissions!

The grid has weak links with some interties still in service after 70-80 years or more. But barring sabotage or hack of scada it's still fairly robust.
The bigger issue is capacity. Lines aren't de-energized. for maintainance. They can't be without going dark. There's not enough capacity to transfer load in most cases.
Still larger is the generational knowledge leaving. +/- 40% of the workforce is retiring in less than ten years without adequately trained nor sufficient numbers of replacements. That's critical.

Fogdog said:

This isn't the only article that backs up the >90% efficiency claim for electricity distribution:
http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/

Where the real inefficiency is in conversion into electricity. Coal, petroleum and nuclear efficiency is about 38% efficient. Natural gas electricity generation is about 45% efficient.. Fuel cells that convert NG to electricity are 47% efficient (http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/why-fuelcell-energy/benefits/efficient/) -- this for larger installations to run commercial operations. So, big possible gains here but still fossil fuels. Maybe some day methane from sustainable farming. But it would take a huge area to grow enough stock for that kind of fuel to make a dent in our fossil fuel consumption.

Click to expand...

His first assertion, that power plants are 2/3 or 66% efficient is bullshit. Coal fired power rarely exceeds 32% unless water is used to recaptured wasted heat. In arid areas this is more expensive than it's worth. Other fossil fuel fired plants aren't much better.

Fuel cells run 45-65% efficient, AND you get to keep the rest as heat and use it if the unit is in your home, office or commercial facility. This is an enormous difference in efficiency and does not require such a huge infrastructure shift, because so many places already have natural gas pipe to them.

ttystikk said:

Fuel cells are farther along than you may think. Google's biggest server farm runs on them. They are nearly commercially ready, they just aren't properly sized for the average home.

I believe they're the new tech for energy, cultivation and heating one's home. Fuel cells can do all the above simultaneously. Because they don't just waste the cogenerated heat but put it to use, they reduce total carbon footprints far more than traditional power plants.

Since they use natural gas, they emit far less CO2 than other fuels and very little at all in terms of noxious chemicals or heavy metals, all potential problems of using heavier fuels. This adds to their safety at home and their utility in fighting climate change.

And of course we know what to do with the CO2 around here! Do it for a greenhouse of any size and now you're recapturing at least part of your own carbon emissions!

Click to expand...

Can you post a link that tells me more than "fuel cells are the future"? Fuel cells have been around for a really long time and they have made progress. Not doubt. Still, I haven't seen any credible sources that are as enthusiastic as you are. But, you might have read a better source than I have.

Fuel cell tech is an attractive option but there are some real basic issues to deal with even after 30 years of development. For example, the tech that is ready for the market requires crazy hot conversion temperatures which makes for reliability issues and problems doing anything other than a steady state generation. Shutting off and on cuts way down on efficiency. Also, the membranes are mostly made of rare metals making widespread use of this tech unfeasible. I think that the tech might be on the cusp of commercialization. I thought the same thing ten years ago too. Also, how safe is this tech? It's one thing to have a factory-scale generator. It's another to put 10's of millions of these generators in people's homes.

I'm not saying fuel cells can't be implemented. I'm saying fuel cells are the energy source of the future and have been for a long time.

That said, if this country ever does get serious about getting rid of fossil fuels, we need to invest in research and hard nosed engineering to accomplish the task. No reason to overlook fuel cells as an option.

ttystikk said:

His first assertion, that power plants are 2/3 or 66% efficient is bullshit. Coal fired power rarely exceeds 32% unless water is used to recaptured wasted heat. In arid areas this is more expensive than it's worth. Other fossil fuel fired plants aren't much better.

Fuel cells run 45-65% efficient, AND you get to keep the rest as heat and use it if the unit is in your home, office or commercial facility. This is an enormous difference in efficiency and does not require such a huge infrastructure shift, because so many places already have natural gas pipe to them.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards, he says they (coal, et al) lose 66% during conversion. He says natural gas fuel cells run at 47% efficiency to produce electricity.

I'd really like to read a peer reviewed article that is as enthusiastic as you are. I haven't found it.

londonfog said:

You better start a thread so we can follow your grow...no matter how shitty it turns out.
Just kidding on the shitty.
Weed seems to taste better and smoke better when you grow it yourself. When I get these kids out my home. I will grow again

Click to expand...

I'll probably show the progression in ongoing/new PMs...I'll likely be showing parts of my home that have not been seen 'publicly', and there are too many snakes in the grass.
Recurring socks with grudges, alt-right filth, Russian bullshit, etc. Pass on that shit.

I don't wanna mess with wiring and a whole lot of pro-level stuff, just a pail and a light I can plug into a standard socket. Something about nutrients, stones, and silver thermal blankets, as well. If I can harvest 1-2 ounces per month I'm more than good.

Big_Lou said:

I'll probably show the progression in ongoing/new PMs...I'll likely be showing parts of my home that have not been seen 'publicly', and there are too many snakes in the grass.
Recurring socks with grudges, alt-right filth, Russian bullshit, etc. Pass on that shit.

I don't wanna mess with wiring and a whole lot of pro-level stuff, just a pail and a light I can plug into a standard socket. Something about nutrients, stones, and silver thermal blankets, as well. If I can harvest 1-2 ounces per month I'm more than good.

View attachment 3890218

Click to expand...

You might just want to paint the room white a few layers. Should be more reflective than the blankets and little extra moisture barrier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#cite_note-Festinger.2C_L._1957-1

twostrokenut said:

You might just want to paint the room white a few layers. Should be more reflective than the blankets and little extra moisture barrier.

Click to expand...

Flat white is more equally reflective than glossy which makes hot spots

Also, if you're gonna grow one you might as well do 4 in a square.

They take a really long time and you don't want to be in week 5 of flower and think "shit, I should've done more".

(I don't grow federally illegal plants, I just read this online).

Big_Lou said:

I'll probably show the progression in ongoing/new PMs...I'll likely be showing parts of my home that have not been seen 'publicly', and there are too many snakes in the grass.
Recurring socks with grudges, alt-right filth, Russian bullshit, etc. Pass on that shit.

I don't wanna mess with wiring and a whole lot of pro-level stuff, just a pail and a light I can plug into a standard socket. Something about nutrients, stones, and silver thermal blankets, as well. If I can harvest 1-2 ounces per month I'm more than good.

View attachment 3890218

Click to expand...

I would like to contribute to the Big_Poo project!
If you'll pay shipping (which could be significant) I will donate one Sun Systems Blockbuster hood/light.