Comments on: low-impact living

low-impact living

sudama — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:31:45 -0800

The low-impact living initiative produces information sheets on a range of low-impact topics. Don't believe the hype.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:02:22 -0800

Not to be trite but I see no hype the link is right.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:03:51 -0800

I'm still not understanding why humanity doesn't just opt to all live in giant underground cities ala Asimov's Caves of Steel. It just . . . doesn't make any sense to me to live aboveground. Never has.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:18:21 -0800

ha. that site is almost the complete opposite of hype. great information, though. thanks.

By: sudama

sudama — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:26:52 -0800

That was sort of an oblique statement. I was kidding, on the square.

By: sfenders

sfenders — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:37:03 -0800

Solar power for everyone. With a government grant paying 50% of the cost, you can break even on your $30000 solar panels in just 50 years! I'm sure they'd need replacing only once or twice in that period, and the batteries only about 10 times. I wonder if they factored that in. Bee-keeping sounds like fun though.

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 05:01:42 -0800

With a government grant paying 50% of the cost, you can break even on your $30000 solar panels in just 50 years! Where are you being overcharged for your panels, undercharged for electricity and not able to do a grid intertie? Because panels are now 'on sale' at $2.50 a watt, grid interties mean no batteries, and some panels have been going for 30+ years. Technologhy has moved forward, you might want to consider moving with technology.

By: sfenders

sfenders — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:25:53 -0800

overcharged for your panels, Perhaps. The linked article, had you bothered to glance at it, says £16000 for a 2.4kW system (installed). About $12/W. undercharged for electricity Hardly. They quote 7.9p / kWh. I recently read elsewhere that solar panels typically decline in output by a couple percent per year. Is that accurate? In 30 yrs they might be still going, but not exactly going strong.

By: gesamtkunstwerk

gesamtkunstwerk — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:00:31 -0800

I really liked the information on cleaning products. My mother, a chemist, insists that the suggested amounts on the back of most cleaning products is generally higher than the staturation point, thus a huge waste of money. Using cheap home-made products is good enough for most messes.I used to be good about doing this, and saved a lot of $$, but I've been lazy. I've had good luck cleaning with vinegar and soda. Any other endorsements?

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:29:15 -0800

Linking to PDF's is not low-impact web design.

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:54:41 -0800

By: evening

evening — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:54:15 -0800

gesamtkunstwerk - I pretty much use 2 things to clean with that I got from a book full of cleaning recipes (which all use pretty much the same ingredients). Scrub: baking soda, castile soap, water, a little bit of vinegar and essential oil if you want a particular scent Spray: water, castile soap, tea tree oil, and again essential oil That scrub is great stuff, esp. in the kitchen and bathroom. If you need something with a little more scrub power, just use more baking soda (does wonders on the kitchen sink!). The thing about castile soap that is so good is that it's not as "strong" as most liquid soaps which are more like detergents (and give you lots of suds). So it doesn't take much to rinse castile soap, which is good when you're cleaning. Oh - and vinegar/water solution is another great all-purpose cleaner for glass or disinfecting. Can also use as a "rinse" for the scrub.

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:12:36 -0800

evening: Don't stare at the label of Dr. Bronner's Castile Soap too long; it could turn you into a ChristyFundy!