75 replies to this topic

[Fran]

Anyone fancy trying to live a zero-impact life, like this chap, his wife and young daughter. "The concept is that we should have no net environmental impact, which is, of course, technically not feasible," says Colin. "So the idea is that we would reduce our negative impact and increase our positive impact."

In practice this means buying everything second hand, except food, which is bought fresh (no fridge) every other day; recycling and composting as much as possible; walking or cycling everywhere; virtually no electricity (small solar panel) and cutting water usage from ~90 gallons a day to 7.

Admittedly they're only doing it for a year, after which they expect to live a greener life than before, but not as extreme a one as at present. I don't think they're suggesting everyone could or should live like this, but if they manage a year without cheating, I suppose it makes you realise how very wasteful most of us are.

See BBC article about No Impact Man and NIM's blog.

[Alan]

Anyone fancy trying to live a zero-impact life, like this chap, his wife and young daughter. "The concept is that we should have no net environmental impact, which is, of course, technically not feasible," says Colin. "So the idea is that we would reduce our negative impact and increase our positive impact."

In practice this means buying everything second hand, except food, which is bought fresh (no fridge) every other day; recycling and composting as much as possible; walking or cycling everywhere; virtually no electricity (small solar panel) and cutting water usage from ~90 gallons a day to 7.

Admittedly they're only doing it for a year, after which they expect to live a greener life than before, but not as extreme a one as at present. I don't think they're suggesting everyone could or should live like this, but if they manage a year without cheating, I suppose it makes you realise how very wasteful most of us are.

See BBC article about No Impact Man and NIM's blog.

Fran
the idea is great, but if you are part of the modern world it creates obstacles, that make it too hard, I want too and hope to next year move in that direction. the system is against it if you are sill in the system, without financial means.

[Fran]

the idea is great, but if you are part of the modern world it creates obstacles, that make it too hard, I want too and hope to next year move in that direction. the system is against it if you are sill in the system, without financial means.

Well I know from previous posts that you're already heading in that direction more than most of us. Hats off to you.

[Eaton]

I would love to have Solar Panels and a small Wind Turbine, notwithstanding the cost, which unless you plan to stay in your property for a number of years, you will not get back there is the sheer difficulty of fitting. If and when we find a property that we are going to stay in for years (or we build one) we will seriously look into it, or maybe the prices will continue to fall making it more viable.

I watched the BB2 programme with the Strawbridge family and thought that what they'd done was fascinating. However, how many people have the technical know how to be able to: make a waterwheel to channel spring water, convert chip fat into bio fuel, fit solar panels etc. and of course not everyone has their own spring in their garden?

The Strawbridge family were lucky they had a friend who was an Engineer who helped them if they hadn't and had to rely on Contractors I suspect that they would have found the cost prohibitive. Don't get me wrong, they would have tried (and maybe even succeeded) but their Engineer had the knowledge to put their plans into action.

[Carl La Fong]

If it helps them sleep easier at night and have a clear conscience, fine. Me? I don't fancy living in the stone age, thanks very much.

There are things you can do easily and without too much pain to lessen your impact on world resources. You don't need to go to thioe kinds of lengths unless you have a kind of self-imposed paranoia about such things, especially when the rest of the world looks on and makes no such dramatic changes.

[a t o m i c]

I'm not sure it'd be much fun to try and live 'off-grid' like this without the kind of basics that people who have to live off-grid would have. The idea of self-sufficiency is attractive in theory, but the plain fact is that specialisation is usually much more productive for society as a whole. And don't right off money as a good gauge of the value of goods and services, it can be very instructive.

[Fran]

The idea of self-sufficiency is attractive in theory, but the plain fact is that specialisation is usually much more productive for society as a whole.

They weren't really trying to be self-sufficient, except in electricity. They live in NYC!

You make a good point about specialisation and economies of scale, though there does come a point when diminishing returns set in and we have perhaps reached that in some areas.

[a t o m i c]

They weren't really trying to be self-sufficient, except in electricity. They live in NYC!

Say no more. The whole notion is colossally idiotic.

[Alan]

The best anyone can do is reduce their dependency on others, as for energy, few are in a position to exploit the green option, if we all lived next to a river and built a water wheel, the wheel at the beginning would do well, but the one at the other end would be affected by all those before.
As for solar and wind, great ideas, but too expensive at this time, governments should be doing this not individuals, we can aspire to grow vegetables and if lucky animals for dairy products and meat (if your that way inclined).

On a side note I respect the views of vegetarian's who don't want to kill an animal for food, albeit I don't follow that view, it is more sound than those that eat meat, but don't care how it was reared.

[David P]

Say no more. The whole notion is colossally idiotic.

Today's Telegraph contains an 'Energy Saving' supplement. Just two examples:

'Double glazing can cut your energy bill by £80 -£100 a year'. So, it makes sense to spend £3 or 4 grand to save £100 a year?

'The average household boils a kettle seven times a day using 450KW of energy a year'. A 450KW kettle, eh? That should take about one fifth of a second to boil!

While all this drivel is spouted by people without even a basic appreciation of elementary economics or science (or, especially, statistics) I have absolutely no intention of taking any of it seriously.

[Zoom]

'Double glazing can cut your energy bill by £80 -£100 a year'. So, it makes sense to spend £3 or 4 grand to save £100 a year?

Low-energy light bulbs have an even worse pay-back period don't they ? And yet the government has just announced that it is to abolish incandescent light bulbs in favour of low-energy bulbs.

[Eaton]

Low-energy light bulbs have an even worse pay-back period don't they ? And yet the government has just announced that it is to abolish incandescent light bulbs in favour of low-energy bulbs.

It's not just the cost of them, but the fact that the light that they give out isn't very good. We've got two in our living room lamps and it is a very orange glow. Our new wall lights have long lasting bulbs which have been installed since April and we haven't had to replace a bulb... yet! I say long lasting bulbs but they cost £2.79 each.

[David P]

Low-energy light bulbs have an even worse pay-back period don't they ? And yet the government has just announced that it is to abolish incandescent light bulbs in favour of low-energy bulbs.

Probably. In our house no 'energy efficient' bulbs are made to fit the lamps in our kitchen, study or dining room. So, we save a bit of energy in the lounge and hall/stairs. We'll waste a lot of energy in having to manufacture new fittings for the other high use rooms (that manufacture undoubtedly taking place in China, the worst polluter of the lot), and waste a lot more by installing them in the low use bedrooms (since they use a lot of energy in their manufacture). Though, come to think of it, I can't remember having to change a bulb in a bedroom in the 30 years we've been here.

[Alan]

By the way

any views on this being good (Atomic) (http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/7006056.stm) I'm obviously not an expert, but if the whole planet used Nuclear energy this would be alot bigger!

[David P]

By the way

any views on this being good (Atomic) (http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/7006056.stm) I'm obviously not an expert, but if the whole planet used Nuclear energy this would be alot bigger!

Yes, excellent. Nuclear (fission) power is the only sensible way to go in the short term. Limitless power is available that can be used for pretty well every purpose other than aircraft (batteries are too heavy). Only disadvantage is what to do with the rubbish that left over, though there are solutions for that that are simpler to implement than some of the hairbrained schemes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Longterm we can look forward to nuclear fusion - perfectly clean and safe (but up to now they've only been able to make it work for a few seconds).

[Zoom]

Well personally I've just placed a large order for normal light bulbs for our dimmer switched light fittings so we have a stock in hand when they are abolished.

Today there are no dimmable energy-saving light bulbs available in the UK. so yet again the government is introducing changes without considering the needs of consumers, resulting in consumers incurring considerable expense to fit in with a dubious government policy (like condenser boilers, like digital tv).

[David P]

Today there are no dimmable energy-saving light bulbs available in the UK. so yet again the government is introducing changes without considering the needs of consumers, resulting in consumers incurring considerable expense to fit in with a dubious government policy (like condenser boilers, like digital tv).

In fact they are starting to become available - see http://www.thelightb...ail.php?id=3166
I also spotted on an American (of all places) site that there is a greater range of bulbs there - flood lights, candle bulbs, etc. And some with a higher colour temperature. So perhaps all is not lost, except logic.

[KevinR]

It's not just the cost of them, but the fact that the light that they give out isn't very good. We've got two in our living room lamps and it is a very orange glow.

There are a lot more variations in types of low energy bulbs than might at first be apparent. We've got some in our kitchen that I chose for their bright white light (so called 'simulated daylight bulbs'). Technically these compact fluorescent bulbs are rated at 6400 kelvin rather than the 2700 kelvin rating of the cheaper low energy bulbs. The difference (apart from cost) is that the 2700K bulbs have a yellower light, and the 6400K bulbs have a bright white light

Today there are no dimmable energy-saving light bulbs available in the UK.

That is no longer the case. Very recently, Varilight (http://www.varilight.co.uk/) launched a fully dimmable energy efficient bulb that is compatible with dimmer switches. I saw then newly on sale in Ryness last week with a 20W bulb for £14.99 (http://www.ryness.co...?CategoryID=526). Prior to this there have been pseudo dimmable bulbs including those from Megaman and the type mentioned by DavidP that operated at four different levels of output depending on how many times you flicked the lights on/off - not a fantastic solution and not compatible with dimmer switches. I'm assuming that the Varilight prices will drop once the novelty wears off and they become higher volume products.

[a t o m i c]

By the way

any views on this being good (Atomic) (http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/7006056.stm) I'm obviously not an expert, but if the whole planet used Nuclear energy this would be alot bigger!

100 tonnes of a very dense metal is not much material, you know.

Density of Pu = 19.816 g/cm3, so 1 cubic metre would have a mass of 19 tonnes. Therefore, this stockpile is about 5 cubic metres in total - ie about half the volume of a Ford Transit load bay.

[roob_the_doob]

100 tonnes of a very dense metal is not much material, you know.

Density of Pu = 19.816 g/cm3, so 1 cubic metre would have a mass of 19 tonnes. Therefore, this stockpile is about 5 cubic metres in total - ie about half the volume of a Ford Transit load bay.

I wouldn't like to be anywhere near (i.e. within 50 miles of) that Transit once you'd loaded it though

[Alan]

100 tonnes of a very dense metal is not much material, you know.

Density of Pu = 19.816 g/cm3, so 1 cubic metre would have a mass of 19 tonnes. Therefore, this stockpile is about 5 cubic metres in total - ie about half the volume of a Ford Transit load bay.

Sounds good, but is it what do you do with it all, we seem to recycle everyone else's?

[a t o m i c]

I wouldn't like to be anywhere near (i.e. within 50 miles of) that Transit once you'd loaded it though

Neither would I - particularly as it would immediately collapse upon loading.

Makes even the biggest truck bomb look pretty tame, mind.

[Alan]

Neither would I - particularly as it would immediately collapse upon loading.

Makes even the biggest truck bomb look pretty tame, mind.

Am I right in thinking you can't keep it together otherwise you'd create a critical mass, so in fact it needs to be spread out?

[roob_the_doob]

Am I right in thinking you can't keep it together otherwise you'd create a critical mass, so in fact it needs to be spread out?

Yes - hence my wish to be 50 miles away.

[Alan]

100 tonnes of a very dense metal is not much material, you know.

Density of Pu = 19.816 g/cm3, so 1 cubic metre would have a mass of 19 tonnes. Therefore, this stockpile is about 5 cubic metres in total - ie about half the volume of a Ford Transit load bay.

You still didn't explain why this is a good choice for energy, with this problem, you can't keep it together, can you?

[Alan]

Yes - hence my wish to be 50 miles away.

still the wrong hemisphere

[Alan]

Neither would I - particularly as it would immediately collapse upon loading.

Makes even the biggest truck bomb look pretty tame, mind.

Collapse of your van would mean nothing when it all gets very excited and gets very hot, but that must be the way to make the planet safe?

[a t o m i c]

Collapse of your van would mean nothing when it all gets very excited and gets very hot, but that must be the way to make the planet safe?

Alan, do you have a better idea as to how we might generate large amounts of electricity?

[Alan]

Alan, do you have a better idea as to how we might generate large amounts of electricity?

No

I don't, but Nuclear as it stands is not the solution, I agree a temporary stop gap, but can we trust governments or private enterprise to solve the problem using it, I think not as many will use the cheapest or most convenient until that becomes the problem, this is time to look for long term solutions, with the help of others until we have developed better energy use, recycling and renewable sources, so not depending on beef or asparagus from South America or Lamb from New Zealand etc and using local or European sourced goods is a step in the right direction, I'm as guilty as many for buying things from these sources, because they're cheap and available, but at what cost, how can beef from Argentina be cheaper, both morally and economically without someone being exploited or it being subsidised as I believe New Zealand Lamb is with the transport costs. This doesn't need to be a fight, about for's and against just a balanced and sensible move in a direction that looks after the future.

I'm fascinated by the power of the atom and have been since I was a child, which some might think wasn't that long ago, but we haven't found the right or best way of using that energy, accidents happen and in this case the outcome is unthinkable. It can at best only be a stop gap.

[a t o m i c]

No

I don't, but Nuclear as it stands is not the solution, I agree a temporary stop gap, but can we trust governments or private enterprise to solve the problem using it, I think not as many will use the cheapest or most convenient until that becomes the problem, this is time to look for long term solutions, with the help of others until we have developed better energy use, recycling and renewable sources, so not depending on beef or asparagus from South America or Lamb from New Zealand etc and using local or European sourced goods is a step in the right direction, I'm as guilty as many for buying things from these sources, because they're cheap and available, but at what cost, how can beef from Argentina be cheaper, both morally and economically without someone being exploited or it being subsidised as I believe New Zealand Lamb is with the transport costs. This doesn't need to be a fight, about for's and against just a balanced and sensible move in a direction that looks after the future.

I'm fascinated by the power of the atom and have been since I was a child, which some might think wasn't that long ago, but we haven't found the right or best way of using that energy, accidents happen and in this case the outcome is unthinkable. It can at best only be a stop gap.

I read recently that it costs less to ship a package from China to the UK that it does to send it 100km by road IN CHINA.

The problem is that you (indeed, no-one) has no analytical process that even approaches that of simple economics. You don't really need to try and work out how efficient it is to send asparagus over from Peru - the shipping agents and supermarkets have already done it for you. Is shipping agricultural produce around the world morally indefensible when people are taking pleasure cruises? I'll bet the efficiency of commercial ships far outstrips that of cruisers.

Energy supply is slightly different insofar as it's a matter of national security as much as it is one of consumer demand. Do we want to burn our own coal when South American coal is cheaper? Do we want to be dependent on Russian gas? Do we want to be dependent on French nuclear energy? Do we want to stick a barrage across the Bristol channel? Do we want power cuts?