eoinmn wrote:

Kate P wrote:

I don't call my dishwasher 'the liberator' for nothing...

I love the dishwasher. Fantastic invention.
I think it uses a lot less water than hand washing but more electricity. So in terms of environmental impact, it depends on one's priorities.

I would say that depends on how the sink immersion is used.

I would like to dispense with immersion heating altogether. By using an on-demand shower unit and on-demand sink water heater, I should be able to leave the immersion off permanently. I wonder would this be more efficient ??

eoinmn wrote:

Kate P wrote:

I don't call my dishwasher 'the liberator' for nothing...

I love the dishwasher. Fantastic invention.
I think it uses a lot less water than hand washing but more electricity. So in terms of environmental impact, it depends on one's priorities.

Re-using buildings can be even better than rebuilding them, although some are not easy to upgrade in terms of energy efficiency. We need to build well and build to last.

My dish washer is my main eco-vice, but the water is solar heated most of the year.

Shouldn't we promote more use of wood, paper and other natural materials to get away from the oil-economy? Little wooden fruit crates instead of plastic ones and something like pfand for bottles. The pfand system would be one to implement when there is a looming budget deficit - the money spent on some items would double overnight providing a huge cash injection all of a sudden for an economy. The money would be owed back of course but not everyone would come to collect it the following day, just like a bank.

Northern Rock and

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

I would like to dispense with immersion heating altogether. By using an on-demand shower unit and on-demand sink water heater, I should be able to leave the immersion off permanently. I wonder would this be more efficient ??

Wouldn't a smart meter not show this? Pity electricity prices are going up so if they come in and you make the change you won't know. Sneaky basterds.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

eoinmn wrote:

Kate P wrote:

I don't call my dishwasher 'the liberator' for nothing...

I love the dishwasher. Fantastic invention.
I think it uses a lot less water than hand washing but more electricity. So in terms of environmental impact, it depends on one's priorities.

I would say that depends on how the sink immersion is used.

I would like to dispense with immersion heating altogether. By using an on-demand shower unit and on-demand sink water heater, I should be able to leave the immersion off permanently. I wonder would this be more efficient ??

We've installed a large factory insulated water tank and a solar panel and photovoltaic pump. We've only needed to put to immersion of about 7 days in the last four months. Depending on electricity prices this will take 5-8 years to pay for itself.

cactus flower wrote:

My dish washer is my main eco-vice, but the water is solar heated most of the year.

A pretty small vice, IMO.

cactus flower wrote:

Re-using buildings can be even better than rebuilding them, although some are not easy to upgrade in terms of energy efficiency. We need to build well and build to last.

I heard last weekend that pumping insulation into the 2 walls of a terraced house can be as low as €1,000.

Auditor #9 wrote:

The pfand system would be one to implement when there is a looming budget deficit

The impression I get is that the minister for the Environment can't wait to bring in a pfand system, but the retailers are against giving over shop space to it. It requires a lot of space for people to bring back their empties.

I saw a groovy kettle a few months ago that boiled water on demand for a cup or mug. I hate to see 1.5 liters getting boiled and then only 200mL used.
This thing is faster too than waiting for a kettle.
Now that I've said that, I might pop into power city and see if I can get one.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

I saw a groovy kettle a few months ago that boiled water on demand for a cup or mug. I hate to see 1.5 liters getting boiled and then only 200mL used.
This thing is faster too than waiting for a kettle.
Now that I've said that, I might pop into power city and see if I can get one.

`

Why is it that, for men, another gadget is always the answer?

You are, perhaps, referring to the Eco Kettle...

It has a resevoir where the majority of the water is stored. Then you push a button and it fills a second chamber (where the element is) to the desired level and boils it only. That, combined with its higher energy efficient rating, means that it is alot more efficient than a an ordinary kettle.

You can get them in the Ecoshop in Greystones but they charge about €60. Cheaper to order it off the net from the UK.

Here is a photo of it:

** johnfas has a lovely picture of a kettle with buttons above

eoinmn wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

The pfand system would be one to implement when there is a looming budget deficit

The impression I get is that the minister for the Environment can't wait to bring in a pfand system, but the retailers are against giving over shop space to it. It requires a lot of space for people to bring back their empties.

I think this could be a major coup for Gormley if he pulls it off - people are more and more getting a good sense of the waste we produce and controlling it. Aren't there plenty of competing supermarkets in towns now, many of them German who would oblige? I don't know what other infrastructure that would be needed - bottle sterilising and recorking units? Would the outlet send back the bottles to their respective suppliers to be refilled or would it be centralised? i.e. would Aldi deal with Aldi bottles, Lidl with Lidl and so on? I know a lot of these bottles are generic - it might prompt the creation of more generic bottles which itself might reduce waste over time through homogeneity of machines.

I think pfand would alleviate a lot of guilt, plus I could go around after a few months and find the ugliest dirtiest most scratched bottle on the shelves - gives a whole new meaning to shopping.

cactus flower wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

I saw a groovy kettle a few months ago that boiled water on demand for a cup or mug. I hate to see 1.5 liters getting boiled and then only 200mL used.
This thing is faster too than waiting for a kettle.
Now that I've said that, I might pop into power city and see if I can get one.

`

Why is it that, for men, another gadget is always the answer?

Sounds sexy to me too. Machine Nation after all

Office Building Is 100% Sewer-Free


The above building has no toilets, it has this set up:

Quote :

The sewer systems we use today are entirely ineffectual and unnecessary. The primary flaw in our design is that we use freshwater to dispose of feces. This is perhaps the most ineffectual thing to do with human manure — it pollutes fresh water, and it requires municipalities to maintain extremely costly sewage treatment infrastructures. Even after treatment, sewage can still wreck havoc on rivers and groundwater.

The most effective and straightforward thing to do with sewage is to compost it (or use it to produce fuel). It’s a valuable resource.

The C. K. Choi Building is a 30,000-square-foot building that is part of the University of British Columbia. The building has no connection to the sewage system. Instead it has composting toilets and waterless urinals installed.

Bringing a few externalities to bear on the price of an item might encourage us to obviate, alternate, imitate, innovate systems that are more in tune with the world around us.

Metaefficient

They're having a chat on the Property Pin about When Enough is Enough and this is the opening post

Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:

Quote :

SAILORS RARELY blush, and bankers never say sorry. Last weekend Anglo Irish Bank chairman Seán Fitzpatrick warned that the banking sector would fall unless the Government bailed it out. In June 2007 the same Fitzpatrick ridiculed Irish politicians for their "corporate McCarthyism". It was, he said, "time to shout stop. The tide of regulation has gone far enough . . . our wealth creators should be rewarded and admired, not subjected to levels of scrutiny which convicted criminals would rightly find intrusive."

Another "wealth creator", Richard Fuld, chief executive of collapsed US investment bank Lehman Brothers, did appear to squirm for a moment on RTÉ's evening news earlier this week as details of his income were put to him. In the last eight years he has pocketed $310 million - almost a million a week - as reward for his reckless gambling with other people's money. And all with little or none of the intrusive scrutiny Fitzpatrick finds objectionable.

Quote :

All along Dublin's M50 you'll see the latest manifestation of our inability to say stop. The business parks that back on to the motorway are now dotted with self-storage companies. In the US, self-storage facilities now offer 2.2 billion sq ft of storage space. That's 78 sq miles of storage - an area three times the size of Manhattan Island, and all to pack away the mountains of goods that people keep buying but physically can't fit anywhere in their own homes.

A Bank of America analyst described self-storage as a "critical prop to global growth". In a nutshell, if you can't physically fit any more stuff in your house, you might have to stop buying things you don't need - and then the world economy collapses.

The world of consumption and consumerism is a world of disconnection. We are detached from the lessons of history, "because the world of more reviles yesterday, disdains today and preaches an obsession with some mythic perfect tomorrow", says Naish. This also extends to our collective indifference to the pauperised lives that four in five people in the world endure, and how our obsession with more means less and less for them, and for the environment as a whole.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1009/1223445615397.html

Isn't that creepy about the self-storage businesses being fundamental to a vibrant global economy ? On Bloomberg the other day I saw the statistic that between 1992 and 2008 the world saw unprecedented growth in consumer spending but that's now ending it seems. Could we be seeing the world in the throes of massive changes where consumerism will have to morph into something else in order to keep the global economic system buzzing? I keep thinking that the likes of education could be could but our world values more those things we can see touch and measure.

Activity doesn't have to be wasteful and alternatives may be key in stabilising economics from here on out. People need security it seems, but does it really have to be through consumption of disposables? Shouldn't there be a thrust towards quality, durability and an emphasis on non-object activities?

The Times article continues ...

Quote :

Commenting on the study, psychologist Oliver James observes: "Whilst poverty fosters survivalist materialism, it does not result in illness. Materialistic values cause emotional distress only when countries, or classes within them, become affluent."

Our most fundamental needs as humans are to feel secure; to be part of a community; to feel competent and to feel autonomous and authentic. The affluenza virus, James argues, impairs our ability to meet each of these needs. Paradoxically, the widespread social distress, depression and anxiety caused by affluenza is, he believes, crucial for the success of our current economic model of growth-based capitalism.

We strive to fill the void in our lives by consumption, as "it holds out the false promise that an internal lack can be fixed by an external means". We medicate our misery, James suggests, "through buying things".

A principal vector of this virus is television.

What we may see hopefully is less wasteful consumerist type spending and more productive spending. There are masses of things that need attention and investment if we just used our wits.

Shouldn't we be giving this type of thing tax breaks and taxing the life out of industries who don't do it? This way we could get growth with less waste - more sustainable growth ..

Quote :

When structures made of concrete are to be demolished, concrete recycling is an increasingly common method of disposing of the rubble. Concrete debris was once routinely shipped to landfills for disposal, but recycling has a number of benefits that have made it a more attractive option in this age of greater environmental awareness, more environmental laws, and the desire to keep construction costs down.

wikipedia

This yoke even strips the steel from your demolished building producing gravel, rubble, fill.

Quote :

Nelson can help you achieve a high recycle rate on most demolition projects by crushing the concrete removed. We have large backhoes equipped with hydraulic munchers that quickly strip encased rebar and other reinforcing steel from concrete. Our state-of-the-art Extec C-12 concrete crusher can crush and screen to several gradations from sand to cobbles. On your site, we can make custom fill material specifically suited to your needs. http://www.nelsoncontractors.net/recycle.html