low-impact living
April 16, 2004 8:31 PM   Subscribe

The low-impact living initiative produces information sheets on a range of low-impact topics. Don't believe the hype.
posted by sudama (12 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
Not to be trite but I see no hype the link is right.
posted by stbalbach at 9:02 PM on April 16, 2004

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.
posted by Ryvar at 9:03 PM on April 16, 2004

ha. that site is almost the complete opposite of hype. great information, though. thanks.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:18 PM on April 16, 2004

That was sort of an oblique statement. I was kidding, on the square.
posted by sudama at 9:26 PM on April 16, 2004

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.
posted by sfenders at 9:37 PM on April 16, 2004

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.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:01 AM on April 17, 2004

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.
posted by sfenders at 8:25 AM on April 17, 2004

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?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 10:00 AM on April 17, 2004

Linking to PDF's is not low-impact web design.
posted by PrinceValium at 10:29 AM on April 17, 2004

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.
posted by evening at 4:54 PM on April 17, 2004 [1 favorite]

evening: Don't stare at the label of Dr. Bronner's Castile Soap too long; it could turn you into a ChristyFundy!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:12 PM on April 17, 2004

« Older What haven't Swedes designed better?   |   Cows, Ducklings & Trombones Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments