homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Homestead mailing list
List archive
Re: [Homestead] Riot for Austerity! 90% Reduction Emissions Project
- From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
- To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Homestead] Riot for Austerity! 90% Reduction Emissions Project
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:35:22 EDT
In a message dated 6/22/2007 7:07:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
billj AT harborside.com writes:
> Maybe you'll think that gardening is still fun after you have to raise
> all the water for your garden 100' with a hand pump.
Correct, not 100 feet in my case, more like 25. I have an ancient pitcher
pump in the center of the garden and it lifts the water 25 feet from a catch
basin in a creek some 120 feet away.
If you calculate
> the caloric expenditure involved with pumping that much water, it would
> add several hundred calories onto your day's total, after chopping wood
> and before all else.
Yes, if you raised water 100 feet by muscle power, it would take several
hundred calories of food.
>We opt not to do that, for obvious reasons.
Sorry, you're dealing with a dull luddite here. It's not obvious at all to
me.
>The
> reason why these systems are possibly more valuable to us than to you is
> that we're 3 days away from a dead garden once the power goes out, since
> the electric pump we're stuck with now allows for no other options.
>
I have no idea how long my gardens would last this summer without irrigation.
We get a thunderstorm every ten days or so be we are more than 11 inches
below he normal rainfall for the year so far. Some things would have died
for
sure, many more would never have germinated and transplanting would have been
impossible.
I'm don't disparage the use of electicity especially for such applications
as lifting water where you get a lot of return for the little expense that it
costs. In my case the water and the creeks are more than 2000 feet from the
electrical terminus and I am not inclined to run commercial power down the
mountain side to the gardens. Manual pumping is a feasible alternative just
as it
would have been for the fellow on the web page who was lifting water 35 feet
at the rate of 75 gpm.
My observation is that the present thrill seems to be to be able to stand
back with arms folded and watch that energy-intensive-to-produce,
not-necessarily-sustainable, system work while the idea of just pumping it by
manual labor is
viewed with ghastly horror. </HTML>
-
Re: [Homestead] Farming Commune?
, (continued)
- Re: [Homestead] Farming Commune?, Lisa K.V. Perry, 06/20/2007
- Re: [Homestead] Farming Commune?, VAN DELL JORDAN, 06/20/2007
- Re: [Homestead] Farming Commune?, Lynn Wigglesworth, 06/20/2007
- Re: [Homestead] Farming Commune?, Gloria Morris, 06/21/2007
- Re: [Homestead] Farming Commune?, Lynn Wigglesworth, 06/21/2007
- Re: [Homestead] Farming Commune?, Robert Walton, 06/20/2007
- Re: [Homestead] Riot for Austerity! 90% Reduction Emissions Project, Lisa K.V. Perry, 06/21/2007
- Re: [Homestead] Riot for Austerity! 90% Reduction Emissions Project, Lynda, 06/20/2007
-
[Homestead] Water, was Re: Riot for Austerity! 90% Reduction Emissions Project,
Gene GeRue, 06/23/2007
- Re: [Homestead] Water, was Re: Riot for Austerity! 90% Reduction Emissions Project, Bill Jones, 06/26/2007
- Re: [Homestead] Riot for Austerity! 90% Reduction Emissions Project, Bill Jones, 06/26/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.