I'll go first:

I'm a fan of hydroelectric. My reasoning for this is that first of all I live in an with a decent amount of rainfall and lots of rivers, streams, estuaries, etc. It wouldn't be terribly hard to find a body of water capable of moving a turbine or a waterwheel fast enough to generate between 25 to 100 kw depending on the size and quality of the plant.

There are two big problems with my idea: First is finding the raw material to build the plant out of. I'd need some sort of turbine or comparable mechanical assembly to put in the river, I'd need a transmission for the turbine, and I'd need a rotor and a stator that could realistically be connected to the transmission. The rotor/stator, and transmission would be easy enough to come by, I'd just need to find an emergency generator in an abandoned building and do some wrenching.

The turbine is an entirely different matter. Although there are a few companies that make this kind of thing, they're not terribly common. That, and from what I've read they were either manufactured for remote mining operations in the early 20th century or if they're being made these days they're expensive as hell. The other options options are scavenging a turbine from a jet engine, or making something. Those are both pretty unrealistic options given my resources.

The other problem with hydroelectric is getting 60 hz to run all of the cool shit that would be useful in a post shtf world. Governing hydroelectric power is a tricky motherfucker to say the least. In industrial hydroelectric plants this is accomplished by using a mechanical governor that controls the flow of water through the turbine. Frankly, from the prints I've looked at, a hydroelectric governor isn't as complicated as a mechanical isochronous for a diesel electric generator. But it's not exactly something that you'd find at Napa or Autozone.

Yeah, I know, I kinda sperged out. I have waaayy too much time on my hands.

You need power that can be used by someone who has no experience operating it, is relatively easy/cheap to build, and (ideally) is self-sustaining. Wind and water seem the way to go.

Unfortunately, power sources would likely only be used for emergency purposes or food storage. You don't NEED lighting when lamps are available, and if there's a central area making ice, you won't even need to power a refrigerator.

Although with the right engineers surviving, you could conceivably strip home solar panels and hospital generators to have something like a power system. Another good idea is just having a society near a coal mine. It won't be fun, but you'll have access to fuel and most coal mines generate their own power.

I think most likely, however, is the fact that you'll just be shit out of luck. It's not all bad, though: We've been without electricity for most of our existence.

>We've been without electricity for most of our existence.

True that, in a post shtf scenario electricity wouldn't be an immediate requirement for survival. But assuming that you're living in a world where any form of organized government won't be coming back for generations, you're eventually gonna have to think about it.

Here's one example: even with a basic plant and grid, you could scavenge and operate an industrial reefer unit. The ability to store perishable food would expand your dietary options, which in turn would allow your community to be happier and healthier.

Although I guess you don't even need electricity to make a basic reefer. Ammonia reefers don't require compressors or electro-mechanical valving to operate. You just need water, ammonia, some piping, and a heat source for the chemical reaction.

I guess that the absolute easiest way to provide a community with AC power would be to scavenge an electro-diesel e-genset from a hospital. Thing is, you're gonna be spending the majority of your time afterwards looking for fuel and parts. Not to mention disassembling it at the hospital, transporting it to your community, reassembling it and putting it on line. It wouldn't be a weekend project.

I'm not a huge fan of solar energy because you're kinda screwed from the outset. All the panels are doing is charging a battery. Although there are some applications for DC current, rectifying it to AC for use in motors and other appliances would be a pain.

Wind and water eliminate the need for diesel fuel, but if you don't have access to a functional wind turbine or hydro plant you're gonna be spending a LOT of time experimenting with parts that were never meant for the application your trying to use them in.

>Here's one example: even with a basic plant and grid, you could scavenge and operate an industrial reefer unit. The ability to store perishable food would expand your dietary options, which in turn would allow your community to be happier and healthier.

I could be wrong here, but I believe refrigeration and preservation techniques have been in play since before the development of industrial electricity. I believe the creation of ice was possible long before industrial refrigeration.

Wikipedia has this entry on "Refrigeration" (sub-topic "Ice Harvesting"):
>The use of ice to refrigerate and thus preserve food goes back to prehistoric times. Through the ages, the seasonal harvesting of snow and ice was a regular practice of most of the ancient cultures: Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Persians. Ice and snow were stored in caves or dugouts lined with straw or other insulating materials. The Persians stored ice in a pit called a yakhchal. Rationing of the ice allowed the preservation of foods over the warm periods. This practice worked well through the centuries, with icehouses remaining in use into the 20th century.

That's a lot easier conceptually than a power grid.

>Wind and water eliminate the need for diesel fuel, but if you don't have access to a functional wind turbine or hydro plant you're gonna be spending a LOT of time experimenting with parts that were never meant for the application your trying to use them in.

The problem is that there is no immediate survival value to a turbine or hydro plant. The problem of food preservation has been solved for thousands of years. The purpose of energy generators is to make an already solvable problem a trivial one. That's valuable and important, but it's also a solution that doesn't need to exist immediately.

Lights can be create via lamps using oil from fish and animal fat. Torches from dried wood, if necessary. Food preservation can be developed through a number non-electrical means. Creation of shelter does not require the advanced tools we use today.

Understanding this means we don't have to solve the power generation problem immediately. We can take our time with it so long as the basic question of survival is answered.

>We can take our time with it so long as the basic question of survival is answered.

That sums up my way of thinking pretty well. I think that if there isn't a lot of rebuilding to be done, there will be a lot of time to get to figuring out power grids. A power plant operating at a tenth capacity will be a lot easier to manage than one operating at peak strength.

Still, there would likely be some power rationing. And though I'm not a big buyer into the "desert raider" brand of post-apocalyptic fiction, having power would definitely be a beacon; if not for raiders or whatever, but for an influx of refugees your "city" may not be able to handle.

I think the best way to do it would be either solar power or Nuclear power (assuming you have the expertise and know how to find, enrich, and properly use Uranium)

Natural gas is to hard to find as is coal and there is barely any oil left so it only leaves those and biofuel viable

>>364
I think it'll be a little harder to get enriched Uranium than it would be to get gas/coal

>>366
Coal is a funny thing. As I understand it, there's a mountain in Australia that's basically had an internal coal fire going on for the last 6,000 years. It's believed that somehow a vein of coal near the surface was ignited and this led to the ignition of a larger collection of coal deeper within the mountain. In the US, a small town in Pennsylvania had to be evacuated because a local underground coal deposit lit up. The deposit was large enough to be underneath the entire town, so the government came in and moved everyone.

Interesting fact about coal #2: US coal is radioactive. The coal from the US has small radioactive particles in it. There's no problem just holding it as the ratio is insignificant. When you burn it, though, the radioactive particles go into the air along with the smoke, which eventually people will breath in. My understanding is that coal from other countries is considered "cleaner" in that respect.

This opens both possibilities and dangers. If you could find that town that had to be evacuated, and assuming you could find a way to dig up the earth to expose some of the coal, you'd have a ready-made heat source that might last beyond your lifespan. On the other hand, you'd have to consider the possibility of long-term damage and defects due to exposure of radioactive particles (however remote the chance might be).

>>369
Why bother digging? There's coal mines already dug all over the country. I don't think you'll see anyone using fossil fuels until the population reaches at least 1700 levels again.

>>370

I guess it would be a matter of finding a vein of coal that had ignited. The town I spoke of has a vein of coal that won't burn out for 300 years (estimated, but I can't find the reference). In human terms that's practically an eternal heat source. Assuming you could harness it somehow, you've got automatic heat in winter, heat for cooking, that sort of thing. That vein of ignited coal would have to get exposed, though.

I was able to find a Wikipedia article regarding the town: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania#Mine_fire

Looks like the coal is easily accessible there, but the toxic gases and smoke, not to mention the intense heat of burning coals would make direct interaction difficult. I suppose it wouldn't matter if the heat itself could somehow be directed and harnessed.

>>371
The reason Centralia was evacuated is that the coal fires not only produce a shitload of carbon monoxide, but because eventually the town will cave in on itself. Doesn't seem like the best place in the world to start a colony.

>>372
True. I concede defeat on that point. What I was trying to say was that, assuming there was some way to harness the heat, an ignited vein of coal would be an energy source that could help establish a survival basseline. Granted, Centralia presents enough problems that it's not worth the effort.

Assuming one knows one or more locations ahead of time, perhaps unignited coal mines would be a good place to pick up a few bits here or there to keep warm and cook food, both being fairly critical from the moment the post-apocalypse begins.

I think that the goal of re-harnessing electricity in a PA world would be less about returning to the norm, and more about servicing the most essential needs of your community, at least at first. A "grid" -even using remnant materials and infrastructure- would be a fucking challenge to achieve within the first couple of generations.

Localized and public sources would be the necessity. As said before, refrigeration, and lighting would be nice, making reconstruction efforts possible in the dark hours and such. Also, their is a need for clean water, community heating systems for cold climates, or air circulation for the hypothetical minecrafters (hiding from creepers, and whatnot).

You gotta remember that it wouldnt necessarily be required that your power source be electricity. A simple waterwheel or windmill can move things (fans, grain mills, pumps). Let's not forget the simplicity of steam for driving mechanical objects. I'd like to think it'd be more important to focus on technologies that are easily sutained, and require little education in its upkeep, at least to start. They should be, at the utmost, accesible and "idiot proof".

I live in a coastal climate, with moderate forestation, streams and rivers abundant, small and medium huntable animals, temps ranging from 50-100F throughout the year, and decent rainfall (North side of the Gulf of Mexico), so I'll provide some examples:

===Refrigeration:
This one would be tricky for my area. My communities diet would prob consist of agriculturals, and freshly killed meat. If stored in cool, dry places, the plants would be fine. Meat would have to be eaten soon, or salted for storage. Salt could be obtained by dehydrating sea water [see water purification below]. This would obviously be saved for the months preceding winter, to build up reserves. http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=57040

===Lighting:
I would consider this less than a necessity, but conveniences = morale = survival. It would also be a tricky one. Scavenging a generator would be ideal, rigging it to some car batteries and lights, but this would be a very limited source. I would say that only communal areas, security concerns, and construction projects be lit at night, as a fuel source would be hard to come by. Of course, theres always the option of trying to rig it to a running water source, or using a methane seive to capture cow farts, or steam... Honestly, the easiest way to accomplish a simple lighting system would be either fire or animal fats. I cant think of a readilly available wax source in my area, so candle production is out.

===Heating:
Fire.
Plenty of trees in my area, and logging is already big business here. Painted containers could be used to heat water in the sun, for hygiene and such.

===Water Purification:
Boil and re-condense. You gotta worry about the health of your community. Even in the summer, it would be a safe assumption that no person would consume (by drinking or cooking) more than 2 gallons of water a day -that is under heavy manual labor, and so this wouldnt be too hard to maintain. Proper storage of purified water would be the issue, and so less-porous plastics, and stainless would be ideal.

>>381
Regarding candles, I believe candles were originally created through the use of tallow, most commonly made from cow fat. The upside of tallow candles is that, if necessary, you can eat them. I have the book SAS Survival Guide and that's one of the things it notes. Granted, it probably wouldn't taste all that great...

Methane could be obtained by a sizeable amount of decaying matter. If you built some kind of container to hold all the matter, you would eventually get methane. Probably not enough to take advantage of, though. I've heard that garbage dumps have methane towers to burn off the execess methane from all that decaying material, so I suspect you'd need a large quantity of matter to create enough methane to be practical.

>>384
ill try to look up some numbers and such on it, but i saw it on PBS a few days ago:

some rural township here in the States, was augmenting/replacing local energy consumption with methane powered generators (converted over from diesel gens, i think). It was originally a dairy farm, but methane harnessing was a way for them to further capitalize, and whatnot. seemed like they had prob somewhere between 100-300 cows, and it supplied a good deal of energy for the community.

The process (simplified):
Cow shits
Shit is stored in an underground tank, not unlike gas station fuel tanks.
methan collects near the top of the tank.
methan is siphoned to generator.
generator connected to "grid" somehow.

I would really only consider it a feasible option in a somewhat large PA community (pop. of at least 75-100) with a great deal of cattle, but being that cattle are a great source of many goods (thanks for the tallow tip), it would come natural to further use the by-products.

come to think of it, i think the a succesfull PA groups would immediately embrace 19-20th century agricultural practices, being that it would supply plenty of opportunities for energy; methane, candles, wood...

shit, "cow patties", ie: dookie pies, make a field expedient fire log. make sure to carry one with you when SHTF. ha.

>>389
assuming that capitalism is the most natural return to economy in a /pa/ world.

>>390
This is a good point. Unless that engineer has some fighting or survival skills the most likely outcome is that he'll be enslaved by a group and forced to use his skills for them until he's too worn down to work. If the group is small enough, there won't be bartering; he will be a common resource. If the group is big enough, he may be forced to teach his skill to others. Initially no group will want to share him (or her) because it would be sharing a survival advantage.

>>391
exactly. while any economy model can be stripped and anologued to resemble capitalism, ultimately it wont matter. uneducated, or weak survivors become indentured, and that goes out the window. sure, humans will probably never regress further than bartering, but the currency cant be limited to goods and services.

niggers_on_a_boat.jpg